"Respondeat superior" is a maxim of great antiquity; but the modern development of the responsibility cast upon the "superior" is far beyond anything which was dreamed of in bygone days. The spread of democratic ideas throughout the world has brought about a revolution, universal in its character, in relation to this subject. The law which obtains in this respect in Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium has been carefully investigated by the author of the first of the above-named works; and English employers will at once perceive that they are not the only sufferers from this change in the order of things. It appears that in France the state of public feeling is in a transitional stage. Case-law tends strongly against the employer, as witness the decision in the Hautmont case in the matter of "La Société de la Providence," which is related in this work. But case-law in France has not, of course, the importance which it possesses in England. There will be no enduring change until the legislature has moved; but a straw shows which way the wind is blowing. In Germany the theory which prevails is that of "culpa in eligendo." If my servant in Germany injures my neighbour, it will lie upon me to show that I did my utmost to choose a servant who would not inflict such injuries; but, if I can show this, it is an answer to all claims. In England the employer's position is yearly becoming more difficult; his responsibility for his servant is only less than his responsibility to his servant. The Act of 1897 is as yet untried; but its importance may be readily appreciated from the fact that Mr. Willis is already able to publish a fifth edition of his little book. Both he and Messrs. Robinson and Sim have been rather in the position of builders without straw; and, in the absence of case-law, the former has had to fill up pages with opinions of his own on questions that may presently arise, and the latter with extracts from the Parliamentary debates which passed when the Bill was under discussion. But both works have been executed with industry and care; there will, doubtless, soon be decisions enough to chronicle, and the writers will be sure to note them under their proper sections in future editions which are certain to be called for.

Licensing Practice. By O. F. CHRISTIE. London: Grant Richards. 1898. Pp. 223. Price 6s. 6d. net.

Third Edition. Handbook on the Licensing Acts and their Administration. By ALFRED T. DAVIES. London: Macmillan 1898. Pp. 67. Price 2s. 6d. net.

& Co., Limited.

Twelfth Edition.

The Licensing Acts, with introduction, notes,

By the late JAMES PATERSON, M.A. This

forms and index.

edition by WILLIAM MACKENZIE, M.A. and Butterworth & Co. 1898. Pp. 400.

London: Shaw & Sons
Price 10s. 6d.

Seventy years have passed away since the famous Alehouse Act (Stat. 9, Geo. IV. c. 61) became law, and in spite of all that has been said and written and preached and done in these seventy years, this ancient enactment still holds sway. But though this forms the foundation of the present Licensing Law, very large structures of later days have been raised upon it. Indeed, it may almost be said that hardly a year has passed since the Alehouse Act itself became law, but it has seen some new statute added which has its bearing upon the present system. The enormous importance of the matter cannot be exaggerated, and there are many persons whose very livelihood depends upon their skill in this particular practice alone. Her Majesty's judges have often complained of the confused condition in which the law relating to this practice lies, and every man who first devotes himself to the study of this complicated system reiterates the same complaint. Mr. Christie's book will form a useful introduction to the subject. Its sub-divisions are logical, and its explanationsso far as they go-are lucid. Part I. deals with "full or alehouse licenses;" Part II. is devoted to "certificates granted pursuant to the Wine and Beerhouse Acts;" Part III. grapples with "appeals from licensing justices," with "mandamus and "certiorari" and "prohibition" and with "stating a case;" Part IV. is concerned with "retail sales which require no justices' license;" and Part V. speaks of "offences," which the author divides under forty-seven heads, referring in each case to the proper section of the statute creating the offence. The little work of Mr. Alfred T. Davies, which has now reached its third edition, is a really admirable index to the whole of the Licensing Acts and their administration-an index alphabetically arranged, and giving as much information as could be expected in the modest compass of the volume. We must explain in what sense we call this work an "index." An index to a law-book, if skilfully written, can contain the whole law in a nutshell, and this handbook is constructed on that principle. As for "Paterson on the Licensing Acts," it has now its own established place on the shelves of all English law libraries. It is a book which needs to be used, and that regularly and constantly, before the reader will feel at home with it; but we venture to think that there are many practitioners who would feel themselves very much lost without it. It is difficult to find one's way about this puzzling labyrinth even with the assistance

of Paterson, but, if that assistance were denied us, the difficulty would be greater still. Mr. Mackenzie's industry has satisfactorily provided. against this contingency, and the present issue seems completely up to date.

With a

Second Edition. The Law of the Press. A Digest of Law affecting Newspapers in England, India, and the Colonies. chapter on Foreign Press Codes. By JOSEPH R. FISHER, B.A., of the Middle Temple and the Northern Circuit, and J. ANDREW STRAHAN, M.A., LL.B., of the Middle Temple and the Midland Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. London: Wm. Clowes & Sons, Limited. 1898. Price 27s. 6d.

The second edition of Fisher and Strahan's "Law of the Press " is not only an enlargement, but the authors have so rearranged and recast the work as to make it appear almost a new book. The introduction to the first edition, conceived in a somewhat journalistic spirit, and dealing with the grievances of the Press and the possible remedies, does not reappear: probably to make room for some of the additional matter which this edition of the book contains, certainly not because the suggestions of the authors have been carried into effect, for there has been little change in the law since the date of the first edition, though the attitude adopted by some of the judges, notably the Lord Chief Justice, has materially decreased the number of speculative actions against the proprietors and editors of newspapers, who must have appreciated the consequent diminution in the amount of legal expenses incurred in defending trivial and frivolous suits brought by impecunious plaintiffs. In the preface to the present edition, the authors refer to the additional protection secured to the Press by the different Colonial Legislatures with reference to the giving of security for costs in certain actions of libel, and the temporary copyrights afforded to newspaper telegrams. The wide scope of the work is seen in Part I., which comprises, with the exception of the Law of Libel, the whole of the Law affecting the Press, including the relations between pressmen and their employers, and the liability of proprietors when members of public bodies. After a chapter dealing very minutely with registration and postal regulations, the law relating to advertisements of lotteries and prize competitions is clearly set forth, and in considering the chaos of the betting laws, a pertinent question is asked as to the legality of tipsters' advertisements giving the specific addresses of the advertisers; but no attempt is made to solve the problem. Copyright is treated fully and concisely; eg. the effect of

the important case of Lamb v. Evans upon copyright law generally and as it affects editors, advertisement canvassers, and the printers of pirated editions. The suggested extension of Bulwer Lytton's Act would certainly remedy a legitimate grievance of the present-day journalist.

Part II. deals with the Law of Libel, a subject which occupies half the book; but, in spite of the explanatory footnote on p. 181, exception must be taken to the consideration of fair comment under the heading of "Justification." The plea of Justification, rightly or wrongly, has acquired a technical meaning in the law of libel, that the facts as stated by the defendant are true in substance and in fact. If the statement be one of opinion, the test of truth has no application. Comment on, and criticism of matters of public interest are the rights of every individual, and in R. v. Sullivan and Others (11 Cox C.C. 54), Fitzgerald, J., said: "A journalist may canvass and censure the acts of the Government and their policy; and, indeed, it is his duty." Can the journalist, who pleads fair comment, be said to justify his words in the sense in which "justify" is used in the law of libel? In the first edition of this work, "fair comment" appeared under the heading of "Privilege." The maturer consideration of the authors has taken it from the domain of privilege; it is to be hoped that in the next edition Part II. Chap. II. will be entitled, "Fair Comment, Privilege, and Justification," thus avoiding all confusion of idea and the use of the term "justification" in a sense other than that which is usual in the law of Libel. The explanation of an innuendo is perhaps not very clear, and might be improved by a quotation from the old case of James v. Rutlech (4 Rep. 17).

The manner in which the question of malice is dealt with is not quite satisfactory; thus, on p. 159, immediately preceding the quotation of the definition of Brett, L.J., in Clarke v. Molyneux, we find the following words: "express malice as it is sometimes called, to distinguish it from the presumed malice which renders every unprivileged libel actionable." It would be much better, in our opinion, to abandon all reference to presumed malice, or malice-inlaw. As has been well said, "malice-in-law is the vaguest possible phrase. It merely denotes 'absence of legal excuse.' The old dicta that "malice is the gist of the action," and "malice is presumed from the publication of defamatory words," have been long ago consigned to the limbo of fiction. The injury done to the plaintiffs' reputation is the true ground of action: malice is only a reply to a particular line of defence, and no portion of the plaintiffs' primâ facie case.

On p. 201, in the consideration of the necessity of malice to render slander of property actionable, reference might have been made to White v. Mellin (referred to on the preceding page), in which case Lord Herschell, L.C., contrasted the views of Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ. Although it was unnecessary to decide the point, the view taken by Lindley L. J., in the Court of Appeal, was adopted by Lords Watson and Shand, the only lords who discussed the question.

Journalists might well be reminded that a fair and accurate report of proceedings at a meeting of shareholders is not privileged, though the criterion suggested by the authors for determining what is and what is not a public meeting is admirable. In the chapter on Civil Procedure, in which the effect of Oxley v. Willis is carefully explained, no reference is made to the right of the executors and administrators of the plaintiff to appear as respondents on appeal from a final judgment, and the case of O'Connor v. The Star Newspaper Co. ought surely to have been quoted on the question as to what constitutes "good cause" for depriving the successful plaintiff of his costs; while the paragraph on injunctions, on p. 228, leaves the erroneous impression that the Chancery Courts alone grant interim injunctions.

A summary of Colonial Press Law, so far as regards Registration, Libel, and Copyright, forms Part III., and is a most useful addition; but the fact that the majority of journalists in the South African Republic are British subjects does not seem sufficient to account for the inclusion of the South African Republic laws in the chapter dealing with Colonial law. Their proper and natural place is in Part IV., which nominally contains Foreign Press Laws, but practically only the laws of France and Germany.

Apart from what has been noted above, we have nothing but praise for the book. It is an excellent and interesting work, and considering the various branches of the law brought under contribution, most accurate. It cannot fail to be most useful both to the lawyer and to the vast section of the community which is comprehended in the term "the press." Its value would, however, be greatly increased by a thoroughly good index. The value of a work has been said to vary as its index; if this were so, Messrs. Fisher and Strahan's book would not be the really excellent work which it undoubtedly is. For the present index is by no means as full as it should be. To mention a few instances we search in vain for "comment," "fair comment," "mitigation of damages," "reporters," except as to their presence at public meetings, "security for costs' or "unlawful meetings." With a fuller index the book would be invaluable.