« PreviousContinue »
have been apprised." There is no doubt that this is the fact, the great majority of cases in the Courts of Common Law, are for this reason not “ tried out,” but at some stage or other settled, after some delay and expense. A principal object of the present work was, it was stated, " to render accessible to laymen, a knowledge of our law and institutions." The primary design being a Popular Digest, the great objects being compression and simplicity, the former being attained by keeping to a distinct explanation of the immediate matter in hand, the other by avoiding technical obscurity, and following a convenient arrangement." The work is divided into six parts, the first comprises the chief points in the original jurisdiction of the Laws of England; the second treats of the administration of justice, civil and criminal; the third embraces the law affecting classes, or particular descriptions of persons, or ordinary relations of life, the clergy, the magistrates, parish officers, partners, coroners, master and servant, landlord and tenant, &c. The fourth part treats of the inheritance, possession, and transfer or transmission of property, wills, contracts, &c. The fifth part relates to civil injuries, libel, trespass, &c. The sixth treats of criminal law and procedure. There is added a Dictionary of law terms, truisms, Acts of Parliament, and judicial authorities. It might almost be deemed impossible to compress into a single volume so vast a body of law, but the author has pointed out how the object is attained. “ It has often been remarked,” he says very truly, into how small a compass knowledge may be compressed, by confining it to a simple statement of facts and principles." And this system he has applied to the present work, and, by adhering to it alone, has been enabled to accomplish his task. His aim, he says, has been to condense his statements on each subject into the plainest and most popular language, while following such an arrangement as to enable a reader to find the law on any subject with facility. In the present edition recent changes in the law have been carefully noted, as for instance, the Ballot Act of 1872, and the Judicature Act of 1873. The work is printed in the clearest type, and on the finest paper, and is certainly an extremely useful and interesting work.
THE HAND-BOOK OF THE LAW OF Scotland. By James Lorimer, M.A., F.R.S.E., Professor of Public Law in the University of Edinburgh. Third Edition, By Dugald McKechnie, M.A., Advocate.—Lord Bacon introduced the term “ Essays with humility to cover "attempts," which in the end proved to be substantial facts. So, too, did Lord St. Leonards introduce the modest name of “hand-book” to herald his masculine treatise on Land Rights. Since these two great men left their
several impress on the literature and law of England there has been no end of essays and hand-books. Some have been good, many indifferent and few surpasses the original specimens set by these master hands. Mr. Lorimer, in 1859, produced this valuable Epitome of Scotch Law. In his preface the author very accurately, but moderately, set forth his object as being to furnish the
66 with fidence and serenity those occurrences in which the professional person must act without professional aid ” a book intended for practical application in emergencies the first requisite is, that the rules enumerated shall be sage.” The author most truly realized these views, and in his comprehensive and exhaustive treatise he dealt with every branch of law at once with perfect accuracy and yet with admirable simplicity. He afforded an ample store house and guide to the non-professional, but farther, it was found by its ample deference to authorities, both institutional and judicial, a most valuable directory and index to the lawyer who was desirous or obliged to trace the doctrines to their principles. It was not, therefore, to be wondered that a second edition of the work was soon called for and which, with valuable aids, the author undertook, bringing down the law to the time of its publication. Since then, legislative changes in the Scotch law have neither been few or unimportant, and therefore a third edition has been rendered necessary and anxiously desired. The author being now worthily seated in the Professional chair of Public Law, which branch of jurisprudence he has illustrated by several admirable publications, he has devolved the preparation of the third edition to one of the most rising of the juniors of the Scotch bar. Mr. McKechnie has performed his task in a manner highly creditable to himself, and worthy of the original work. This is the latest, most accurate, and exhaustive of Scotch legal jullic tions, and we feel confident will secure the same, if not even gierier, patronage than what was bestowed on its predece sois.
CONTEMPORARY LEGAL JOURNALISM. The Scottish Journal of Jurisprudence and Scottish Law Magazine.- This publication well sustains its character, and well represents Scottish jurisprudence, legal journalism, and the effects of Scottish legal education. It has always been our opinion that Scotch lawyers are superior to our own, chiefly on account of the higher character of Scotch law and the higher education of Scotch legal education. The Scotch law is founded more upon the Roman than our own, and the Scotch. Scotch judicial system, being founded on the French, made provision for a regular system of forensic education and examination in the Scotch, as there was on education in an enlarged. This very number contains an Act of Sederunt, that is, a general order of the Court of Session as to examinations of law agents in general knowledge (history, logic, classics, and mathematics) and in the law of Scotland, civil and criminal : Erskine's Institutes, Bell's Principles, Hume's Commentaries, &c. From this it appears that the writers, Scotch law agents, judges, are properly resolved to keep up the high character of their law agents up to a high standard of education. The effect of the Judicature Act will be to make thə character of our judicial system approximate more to that of Scotland. Hence it it is naturally of some interest to our Scotch brethern, and we observe our contemporary has been publishing a series of ideas and succinct analyses of the Act. For a similar reason the nature of the Scotch judicial system becomes of greater interest to English lawyers, and we observe in our contemporary many interesting illustrations of it. Lord Brougham long ago pointed out that the Scotch have what we have not to this hour, and shall not have under the Judicature Act, an excellent system of local courts of first instance for the institution of all suits. Our County Courts are miserably inferior courts with limited jurisdiction, originally, indeed, intended for a very small, and with a rough summary procedure, only adapted for such cases. The Scotch Sheriff Courts are excellent courts, with judicature and procedure fitted for all ordinary cases, and, above all, affiliated to the Supreme Court. We observe in our contemporary that a question has arisen as to the power of the Court of Session, where public convenience or necesssity requires, to make interim appointments to judicial and other offices, and in particular to the office of Sheriff.
The Sheriff in Scotland is not, as in England, a merely annual officer, ministerial officer, but has a permanent judicial office, with a regular deputy, a sheriff substitute, from whom an appeal lies either to the sheriff or the Court of Session, an appeal also lying from the sheriff to that Court. Such men as, Sir Walter Scott and Sir Archibald Alison filled the office, and the Scotchsheriffs are generally men of high learning and ability. The periodical before us has a portion devoted to Sheriff Court cases, in which the judgment gives the grounds and reasons, stated in a neat and succint way. And it appears that the sheriff has a Small Debt Court, which answers to our wretched County Court. From this Court an appeal lies to the sheriff. There are also reports of cases in the Court of Session, the Supreme Court. Thus it seems that the Scotch judicial system is far more complete and effective than ours is, or will be ever under its new form. the pages of this periodical display the high tone of learning which characterises the Scotch Bar. There is a learned paper on the Exceptio Re Judicata, discussing briefly, but ably, thə important question how far the judgments of the courts of one state are to be regarded in the courts of another, our own law on the subject had greatly deteriorated under the narrow jealous spirit of the common law; but the writer of this paper truly observes that the whole tendency of modern decisions, under the reviving influence of Roman law is to extend the comity of nations' in this respect. The English decisions, however, still show traces of former jealousy on the subject, and the writer observes, that “in thə English courts, colonial judgments relating to the same matter are not pleadable in war." The general rule is that a foreign jugment between the same parties on the same question is conclusive. There is an able review of Mr. Rattigan's Treatise, “De Jure Personarum,” a good specimen of what a review should be, learned, candid, and discriminating ; written by one who is himself a master of the subject, who has candour to acknowledge merits as well as acuteness to detect defects. The reviewer observes that the multiplication in England of books on Roman law, is a gratifying sign of the times, and he mentions Lord Mackenzie's “Studies," and Mr. Poste's “Gaius," along with Mr. Rattigan's, as invaluable productions, and of good service to legal literature. There is a paper on the Responsibility of Statutory Trustees for the Fault or Negligence of their Servants, in which our contemporary exults in the reversal by the Lords of the decision in Finlater v. Dencan, in the House, in 1839, confirming a judge. ment of the Court of Session which upheld the liability. The decision, says our contemporary, was followed by the Scocth courts, and for many years road and other trustees continued to be negligent with impunity. At the last the Lords in an English case reversed the former decision, and now our contemporary records a recent decision in the Scotch Court of Session, which he says makes the return of our law to what it was before it was reversed by the House of Lords, in order to render it uniform with the law of England, and it does so on the authority of a recent English decision which reversek the former English law, and brought it into reunion with our original law. This is a natural subject of triumph to our contemporary, who says, “ It is strange to observe how opposite to the present decision are the words spoken thirty-four years ago by Lord Chancellor Cottenham, when reversing an original ryle of law." That is to say in effect the House of Lords has acknowledged that not only the Scotch courts were right as to the law of Scotland, but that the Scotch law framed by the Scotch courts, was better than the law of England on the subject. A fair topic of triumph for Scotch lawyers, and a fair proof of the superiority of Scotish law and of the Scotch judicial system.
SPRING CIRCUITS. The following is a complete and revised list of the Spring Circuits of the Judges :
HOME.—(The Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) and Mr. Justice Lush.) Hertford, March 2; Chelmsford, March 5; Maidstone, March 9; Lewes, March 16; Kingston,
OXFORD.--(The Lord Chief the Common Pleas (Lord Coleridge) and Baron Cleasby.) Reading, February 27; Oxford, March 2; Worcester, March 7; Stafford, March 12; Shrewsbury, March 19; Hereford, March 24; Monmouth, March 27; Gloucester, April, 1.
NORTHERN. — (Mr. Justice Denman and Baron Amphlett. Appleby, February 14; Carlisle, February 17; Newcastle, February 21; Durham, February 28; Lancaster, March 7; Manchester, March 11; Liverpool, March 24.
WESTERN.-(Mr. Justice Keating and Mr. Justice Quain.) Winchester, February 26; Dorchester, March 5;
Exeter, March, 10; Bodmin, March 17; Taunton, March 21; Devizes, March 27; Bristol, April 2.
NORFOLK.-(Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Brett.) Oakham, March 2; Leicester, March, 2; Northampton, March 7; Aylesbury, March 12; Bedford, March 16; Huntingdon, March 19; Cambridge, March 21; Norwich, March 26; Ipswich, April 1.
MIDLAND. — (Mr. Justice Archibald and Baron Pollock). Warwick, Feb. 25; Derby, March 3; Nottingham, March 7; Lincoln, March 14; York, March 20; Leeds, March 26.
North WALES. (Baron Pigott.) Welchpool, March 9; Dolgelly, March 12; Carnarvon, March 16; Beaumaris, March 19; Ruthin, March 23; Mold, March 26; Chester and City, March 28.
South Wales.-(Mr. Justice Honyman.) Haverfordwest, February 21; Cardigan, 27; Carmarthen, March 3; Swansea, March 21 ; Presteign, March 26; Chester and City, March 28.
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Sir A. J. E. Cockburn) remains in town.