point in the decision is that the use of drift-nets for the capture of salmon in Ireland is legal. A decision of the House of Lords, in Atholl v. Glover Incorporation of Perth (L. R. [1900], A. C. 403), has established its illegality in Great Britain. But the Court found, in a detailed examination of the provisions of the Irish Fishery Acts, and in the fact that bye-laws regulating the use of drift-nets had frequently been made by the Department of Agriculture and considered by the Privy Council in Ireland, sufficient to induce them to hold that this decision could not apply to Ireland. Whether this divergence between the fishery laws of the two countries really exists, is of course the main question to be determined by the House of Lords: and although the case is of great importance comment may be deferred until the decision of the ultimate tribunal is obtained.

How much farther the law has gone in Ireland than in England in the direction of exempting premises from liability to rates, if they are used for what may be considered public purposes, is shown in Univ. Coll. Cork v. Commissioner of Valuation ([1911], 2 I. R. 593). The college is a constituent college of the National University of Ireland. It provides instruction of a university type, open to the public at large, but subject to the payment of fees by students. Such fees, however, are brought into the general funds of the college, which is bound to present full accounts of its receipts and expenditure annually to the Controller and Auditor-General, and such accounts together with his report are to be laid before Parliament. On these facts, a King's Bench Divisional Court held the college premises exempt from rating, the majority holding that the premises were altogether of a public nature and used for public purposes, while one member held that their objects and use were exclusively charitable. Both of these are statutory grounds of exemption, under the Irish Rating and Valuation Code.

J. S. B.

233

Reviews.

[SHORT NOTICES DO NOT PRECLUDE REVIEWS AT GREATER LENGTH IN SUBSEQUENT ISSUES.]

The Law of Domicile and Succession. By NORMAN BENTWICH. London: Sweet & Maxwell. 1911.

The Yorke Prize at Cambridge has been the occasion of the publication of two meritorious works from the pen of Mr. Bentwich— The Law of Private Property in War, and the work now before us. The intricate subject of Domicile and Succession is treated with conspicuous lucidity and grasp of principle, and the very latest decisions are fully considered. The book ought to take its place as a standard authority. Mr. Bentwich in general follows Professor Westlake in doctrine, but, we think rightly, differs from him in preferring the principle of domicile to that of nationality. The arguments pro et con. are discussed in Chapter IX, in which the Author points out that if the test of domicile may be vague, the test of nationality is inconclusive (though on page 38 he seems to say otherwise). With Professor Westlake, he accepts the exploded theory of renvoi. Is the Author right, on page 117, in saying that Lord Kingsdown's Act does not affect questions of capacity? Surely its enactment that a valid will is not to be affected by changes of domicile is the only safe ground for holding that the question of capacity may be referred to the law of the domicile at the time the will was made (Re Reid)? Mr. Bentwich does not state as openly as Professor Westlake that Kingsdown's Act introduced a third alternative form for the wills of British subjects made in the United Kingdom, viz., the law of the domicile at the time of making the will. That is only a deduction from the clause just referred to concerning the effect of a change of domicile; and if the Legislature meant to introduce such an alternative in the case of British subjects whose wills are made here, why did it not expressly state that alternative, as in the case of British subjects whose wills are made abroad? A few minor points of query may be noted. Mr. Bentwich gives no authority for the statement that a boy who marries under twentyone becomes invested with a power of establishing a domicile. We should say "Anglo-Celtic" rather than "Anglo-Saxon," to describe Anglo-American conceptions. "English" is frequently used for

"British," and on p. 171 this is misleading. There is no "English" or "British" law selecting the domicile as the criterion of the law of distribution for the Empire. It is merely by accident that the various laws prevailing in the Empire do-(if they do)-concur in that selection. St. Lucia (which enjoys the Code Napoléon) may probably apply the law of the nationality; and an Australian State might adopt it any day by a stroke of the pen. Similarly, the last word on p. 180 should be "Irish." On p. 29, Revue should be Journal.

The Annual Practice 1912. By J. B. MATTHEWS, R. WHITE, and F. A. STRINGER. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

The Yearly Practice of the Supreme Court 1912. By M. MUIR MACKENZIE and T. WILLES CHITTY, assisted by H. CLOVER. London: Butterworth & Co.

Tenth Edition. The A. B. C. Guide to the Practice of the Supreme Court 1912. By F. R. P. STRINGER. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

There is every reason to believe that no treatise on a legal subject is so frequently referred to, and by so many people, through the length and breadth of England, as one or other of the first two named publications. The mass of information which they present, the condensed manner in which the essence of decisions is expressed, the skill with which the intricate material is marshalled, and, as a consideration not beneath notice, the moderate price at which the masterly works are supplied, confers upon them the uninvaded ownership of this ancillary but important part of the law of the Supreme Court. A comparison between them would not only be odious, though that might be dared, but most difficult, as its result, to assign a preference to either. Even if a preference could be arrived at, nothing less than a whole year's practice of a lawyer fully employed would decide the balance. They travel, of course, over the same paths; they view the same stretch of vision; and they represent it with equal accuracy. Nothing that one work contains seems to have escaped notice in the other. Of the white book the chief editorship seems to have been undertaken by Mr. J. B. Matthews, and this is a guarantee that there will be no abatement of vigilance and ability in the future.

The portable volume of little over 200 pages of Mr. F. R. P. Stringer is, as those preceding it have been, a very useful book

for turning to swiftly and in ordinary cases; and the references for extension of its statements which it gives to the larger work add an additional value to its possession.

The Court of Criminal Appeal. Butterworth & Co.

1911.

By R. E. Ross. London:

The Court of Criminal Appeal has now been in existence about three years and a-half, and the time has come when a fair opinion can be formed as to whether the fears or the hopes which were entertained with regard to it were the better founded. On the whole we think it may fairly be said that it has been a success. The number of appeals have not been so enormous nor the cost so great as was anticipated by some people, nor has the principle of trial by jury been undermined. Mr. Ross is exceptionally qualified by his official position to explain the working of the machinery of the Court, "and the principles which have been laid down by the Court itself as to when and how it may exercise the powers given to it by the Act." To collect these principles has been no easy task, as most of the very large number of cases reported "decide no principles, and establish no principle." As an instance of the aid Mr. Ross is able to give from his experience, we may point to the difficulty there is in saying what is "a question of mixed law and fact." Mr. Ross thinks that this ground was intended to apply to cases where misdirection is alleged, or where it is alleged that there was no evidence to go to the jury. He points out, however, that in practice no difficulty arises, as the Court, "so far as the question of appeal or leave to appeal is concerned, generally treats these grounds as involving questions of law." It has not yet been decided whether the Court has the power to grant a writ of venire de novo where the trial is a nullity, but Mr. Ross inclines to the opinion that it has. There seem to be some difficult points connected with restitution orders.

The Annual County Courts Practice 1912. 2 Vols. By His Honour Judge SMYLY, K.C., and W. J. BROOKS. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

The Yearly County Court Practice 1912. By His Honour Judge WOODFALL and E. H. TINDAL-ATKINSON. London Butterworth & Co.

1912.

Except for the coming into force of some new rules on minor matters, very little change took place in County Court practice

during last year. But the effects of these rules, and of a few decisions of the High Court on principles of law, are inserted in their due locality. Among some very useful new features in the present publication are precedents, prepared by the chief clerk of Bow County Court, of bills of costs under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and a Table given under Appendix L showing the times for taking County Court proceedings. A learned judge who presides over a Court must naturally be a competent authoritative mentor on the practice enforced in it; and this may therefore be relied upon as a sure and ample guide.

As the Bill introduced last year, which would have had a considerable effect upon County Court practice, had to be dropped, the principal changes required in the Yearly County Court Practice are caused by the new decisions and the Rules of 1911. But the completeness and promptitude with which the necessary changes have been made may be judged by the single fact, that the effect of a case decided only fifteen days before the first day of this year is incorporated in the text, at some length, in no less than three places. The book is so well known and appreciated, that higher praise could not be given to this issue than to say it is worthy to rank with its forerunners.

The Eyre of Kent. 6 & 7 Edward II, A.D. 1313—1314. Vol. 1. Edited for the Selden Society. By the late FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, the late LEVESON WILLIAM VERNON HARCOURT, and WILLIAM CRADDOCK BOLLAND. London: Bernard Quaritch. 1910.

The publication of these records constitutes a marked advance in our knowledge of legal institutions under the Plantagenet monarchy. No report of any Eyre appears in the printed edition of the Year Books of Edward II, and the discovery of the Kentish Eyre of 6 & 7 Edw. II was made by the late Professor Maitland in the University Library at Cambridge. After his death a rough transcript was found by his wife which was generously placed by her at the disposal of the Selden Society for publication. The task of editing these records was entrusted to Mr. L. W. Vernon Harcourt who unearthed some fifteen other MSS., containing reports of this Eyre in whole or in part. All these MSS. had been collated by Mr. Harcourt, when his sudden and regrettable death brought the work to a standstill. Mr. Bolland then came to the rescue. He has collated the Rolls of this Eyre, and the Year Books and Rolls