The two volumes which relate to the Civil Law contain about 800 pages each, and the other two on Probate, Admiralty, Criminal Law, &c., about half that number. The arrangement of the English Law Reports is followed, and considerable pains have been bestowed on the work.

All the branches of English Law exist in the Straits except the Law of Divorce. The reason for that is shewn by the decision of the Chief Justice in the case of Scully v. Scully, reported p. 602. But although the various heads of English Law are administered, they do not stand quite on the same modern footing as at home. For instance, the law of married women's property is the English Law as it stood before the year 1870, and the Practice is taken from the Judicature Rules of 1875, and not from the Rules of 1883a matter which occasions confusion when Practice cases decided since 1883 are quoted in the Courts. It is curious to examine into the nature of the cases which come before the Courts in the far East. Several of them are of the same kind as our cases at home. The chief heads, as gathered from the Index, are:-Bankruptcy, Bills of Sale, Breach of Agreement, Extradition, Gaming, Land, Lotteries, Mahomedan, Married Women, Shipping, and Wills. In fact, the law of England applied to the Straits Settlements until 1827, when the Colony became a dependency of India. From that time the only new laws consisted of Indian Acts, &c. When, in 1867, the Straits Settlements were detached from India, and became a separate Crown Colony, these Indian Acts ceased to apply, and the Settlements have since been governed by local Ordinances, which to some extent copy the Home Statutes. Thus, for instance, there has been a Conveyancing Ordinance and a Bills of Sale Ordinance. The majority, however, are of a purely local nature. The Indian Penal Code regulates the Criminal Law, which is stricter than the Common Law. The Criminal Volume

in Mr. Kyshe's Reports has thrown some interesting light upon that branch of the law as administered in the East, and many of the cases are cited by Mr. H. A. P. Phillips in his work on Comparative Criminal Jurisprudence.

Some cases which occur in the book have an odd look to English eyes. Thus in one case, Donohue v. Joachim, p. 629, we find a suit against an advocate or barrister commencing by a claim, running thus: "Special Indorsement-The plaintiff's claim is 1,500 dollars for culpable neglect, refusal of duty and cheating his clients in serving the other side against them-by not making the charges so strong, nor claiming the amount for loss shown by the plaintiff's instructions-culpable neglect in allowing the other side to be screened when the law admits of no excuse -and in allowing his own clients to be outrageously punished, for being law-abiding and seeking redress at law, instead of taking the law into their own hands," and so the claim runs on through twelve paragraphs, finishing up as follows:-" Although he neglected to prevent, he could not force the Chief Justice and others to obey directions of law, therefore each is responsible for their own separate offences, and the Crown for all." The Chief Justice, however, on application ex parte, had this statement of claim set aside as scandalous.

There are several decisions of interest. One is whether the right of the Attorney-General to reply extends to the Attorney-General of the Colony (p. 605). Seeing that this right of reply is an ancient prerogative of the Crown and is possessed by the Attorney-General of England alone (thus the Attorney-General for the County Palatine of Lancaster does not possess it, nor the AttorneyGeneral for the Duchy of Cornwall) it is difficult to see on what grounds the Judges held that the Attorney-General of a small Crown Colony possessed it; they give no reasons themselves. Mr. Kyshe, in his preface, appends a note of

his own to the effect that Mr. Montagu Williams, in his Reminiscences, mentions that the Attorney-General, or his representative, alone possesses this right. We think that if Mr. Kyshe had desired to quote an authority, he might have fallen back on some famous work, as that of Blackstone or Stephen, instead of the light though interesting autobiography of Mr. Williams.

The decision as to the Colony possessing no jurisdiction in Divorce (p. 602), though indisputably a correct one, nevertheless exhibits a curious state of the Law. The Straits Settlements have the obsolete jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in matrimonial matters. Why jurisdiction in that one particular branch of the Law should not be given, it is not easy to say; but the result inflicts considerable hardship at times. Thus a person cannot obtain a decree in the Indian Courts, some of which are fairly near, residence being required under the Indian Divorce Act, while many cannot afford to go home; indeed, it would be difficult to obtain a decree at home, if the places of domicil, marriage and delict were all in the Straits Settlements, as they might be.

A study of Mr. Kyshe's last Volume would prove highly instructive to anyone interested in the study of Jurisprudence -it brings out the peculiarities of the local law and the weight of the local Judges-and Mr. Kyshe himself deserves high praise for the judiciousness of the selection of his cases and the general pains and care he has bestowed upon the work.

J. A. SHEARWOOD.

V. FOREIGN MARITIME LAWS: III. SPAIN. SECTION III. Of Marine Insurance.-(Continued.)

(II.)

Of Things which may be Insured and their Valuation.

ART. 743. The following may be objects of marine insurance:

(1.) The hull of a ship in ballast or laden, in port or on

a voyage.

(2.) The apparel.

(3.) The machinery, when it is a steam-vessel.

(4.) All the appurtenances and articles which make up

the outfit.

(5.) Provisions and fuel.

(6.) Moneys lent on bottomry.

(7.) Freights to be earned and anticipated profits.

(8.) All trade goods exposed to the perils of navigation whose value can be fixed at a definite sum.

B. Bk. II., 168, F. 334 (1885), G. 782, 783, H. 593, I. 606, P. 597, R. 1234, Sw. 186, 187.

Arn. 18-40.

744. The whole or a portion of the things mentioned in the preceding Article may be insured, jointly or separately, in time of peace or of war, for a voyage or for a period, for a single voyage or compound voyage, or upon good or bad news.

B. Bk. II., 168, F. 335, H. 594, I. 606, 609, P. 597, 598.

Arn. 18-40.

745. If the policy states in general terms that the insurance is on ship, the engines, apparel, and appurtenances, and whatever else belongs to the vessel, are deemed to be included, but not the cargo, even though it belongs to the

same owner.

In an ordinary insurance on "cargo," metals in specie or bullion, precious stones and munitions of war are not deemed to be included.

H. 593.

Arn. 20-21.

746. The shipper, the letter of the ship, or the captain may insure freight, but the letter cannot insure advances received on account of freight, unless it has been specially agreed that if it be not earned in consequence of shipwreck or loss of cargo the sum received shall be repaid. B. Bk. II., 168, F. 334.

Arn. 31, 34, 321, 60.

747. In an insurance on freight the amount to be earned. must be stated, and must not exceed what appears upon the charter-party.

G. 801, H. 616, 623, R. 1234, Sw. 199, 200.

Arn. 321.

748. An insurance of profits is regulated by the agreements of the contracting parties, but the policy must

state:

(1.) The specified amount at which the profit is fixed by the assured on safe arrival and sale of the cargo at its port of destination.

(2.) The obligation to reduce the insurance if the difference between price to be obtained on sale, after deducting freight and expenses, and the cost price is less than the sum assured.

B. Bk. II., 190, G. 805, 806, 797, H. 613—615, R. 1234, Sw. 203.

Arn. 37, 74.

749. An insurer may re-insure with others the articles insured by him, in whole or in part, at the same or a different premium; as also the assured may insure the expenses of insurance and the risk he runs in case of the insolvency of the first insured.

F. 342, G. 783, H. 271, R. 1261, Sw. 205.

Arn. 103.