been cited and the comments of counsel upon them are fresh in my recollection, I may be able to express more intelligibly and coherently the reasons for the conclusion at which I have arrived than if I took time to put my judgment into writing.”—In re Wilmer's Trusts, Moore v. Wingfield, [1903] 1 Ch. 874, at p. 879; 72 L. J. Ch. 378, at p. 381, Buckley, J.

"In dealing with the authorities I will first read a passage from Williams on Executors, 7th ed. vol. i. p. 162; 9th ed. vol. i. p. 138, because that passage in its entirety and in particular the final clause of it has been most emphatically and judicially affirmed."-Townsend v. Moore, [1905] P. 66, at p. 77; 74 L. J. P. 17, at p. 21, Vaughan Williams, L. J.

Reports:

The Times.

"The report of this case [Walter v. Head] was allowed to be read, having been verified by an affidavit by the barrister who had acted as Times reporter."- Walter v. Emmott (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 1061 (n.), C. A.

The Times Law Reports.

"We have also been referred to Rishdon v. White (1888) [5 Times Rep. 59], a case only reported in a series of reports republished from a newspaper. A Divisional Court does appear there to have made an order under rule 7 for the inspection before the trial of documents in the hands of a firm of wharfingers who were not parties to the action. But I have learned from experience, as regards my own judgments, that the reports of decisions thus republished are not always accurate. I cannot, therefore, accept the case as an authority which precludes another Divisional Court from considering the question of the jurisdiction conferred by the rule."-Straker v. Reynolds (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 262, at p. 264; 58 L. J. Q. B. 180, at p. 181, Wills, J.

"We have said that we will accept the Times Law Reports, because they are reports by barristers who put their names to their reports."-West Derby Poor Law Guardians v. Atcham Poor Law Guardians (1889), 6 The Times Law Reports 5, at p. 6, Lord Esher, M. R.

Weekly Notes.

The Weekly Notes are not to be cited as an authority.

"The Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) has stated that cases in the Weekly Notes can only be cited as guides to discovering what has taken place in the Courts."-Barter v. Dubeux (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 413, at p. 414, note (2), Bramwell, L. J.

"The cases in the Weekly Notes cannot be cited as authorities." -Hornby v. Cardwell (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 329, at p. 334, note (1); 51 L. J. Q. B. 89, at p. 91, Jessel, M. R.

"It was determined, while the Lord Chancellor was sitting in the Court of Appeal, that cases could not be cited from the Weekly Notes. No doubt they were generally accurate, but they were too concise to be safely read as authorities. They were only useful for the purpose for which they were intended-to inform the Court and the profession that certain points had been decided.”—Newson v. Pender (1884), 27 Ch. D. 43, at p. 50, note (8), Cotton, L. J. "We do not allow the Weekly Notes to be read as authority." -Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, No. 2 (1886), 33 Ch. D. 76, at p. 77, Cotton, L. J.

"Finlay v. Scott, before Mr. Justice Pearson, was referred to. It is only reported in the Weekly Notes, and although the judgment is given at some length, we cannot rely upon the facts being given as fully as they would have been if the case had been reported in the ordinary way."—Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 261, at p. 273, Cotton, L. J.

"I have been asked to say that the persons who would have been his next of kin in 1880 are entitled to the fund, and In re Westbrook's Trusts, W. N. 1873, p. 167, is cited as an authority for that conclusion. A note of that kind cannot be relied on as a sufficiently accurate report of the case, and the Weekly Notes are not intended for citation. But I have often derived great assistance from them, and they are useful in putting one on the track for further inquiry."-In re Rhodes (1887), 36 Ch. D. 586, at p. 589; 56 L. J. Ch. 825, at p. 826, North, J.

“Now I, speaking for myself, venture to protest against a case being treated as authority which is reported only very briefly in the Weekly Notes, where we cannot tell from the report what the argument was, and cannot tell what the reasons of the judges were, and where we do not even know distinctly what the pro

visions of the will were."-In re Woodin, [1895] 2 Ch. 309, at p. 318; 64 L. J. Ch. 501, at p. 505, Kay, L. J.

"The rule used to be that cases ought not to be cited from the Weekly Notes, and I think, in this instance at least, the rule is deserving of observance."-In re Loveridge, [1902] 2 Ch. 859, at p. 865; 71 L. J. Ch. 865, at p. 868, Buckley, J.

66

Except on points of practice, the Weekly Notes should only be cited as interim reports of cases during the period required for their publication in the law reports."-In re Smith's Settlement, [1903] 1 Ch. 373, at p. 375, Swinfen Eady, J.

Public Records, Reporters, and Ancient Authors.

"The law, and the opinion of the judge, are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law. Upon the whole, however, we may take it as a general rule, that the decisions of courts of justice are the evidence of what is common law': in the same manner as, in the civil law, what the emperor had once determined was to serve for a guide for the future.

"The decisions, therefore, of courts are held in the highest regard, and are not only preserved as authentic records in the treasuries of the several courts, but are handed out to public view in the numerous volumes of reports which furnish the lawyer's library.

"These reports are histories of the several cases, with a short summary of the proceedings, which are preserved at large in the record; the arguments on both sides, and the reasons the Court gave for its judgment; taken down in short notes by persons present at the determination. And these serve as indexes to, and also to explain, the records; which always, in matters of consequence and nicety, the judges direct to be searched. The reports are extant in a regular series from the reign of King Edward the Second inclusive; and from his time to that of Henry the Eighth were taken by the prothonotaries, or chief scribes of the court, at the expense of the Crown, and published annually, whence they are known under the denomination of Year-Books. And it is much to be wished that this beneficial custom had, under proper regulation, been continued to this day: for, though King James the First, at the instance of Lord Bacon, appointed two reporters with a handsome stipend for this purpose, yet that wise institution was

soon neglected, and from the reign of Henry the Eighth to the present time this task has been executed by many private and contemporary hands, who, sometimes through haste and inaccuracy, sometimes through mistake and want of skill, have published very crude and imperfect (perhaps contradictory) accounts of one and the same determination.

"Besides these reporters, there are also other authors, to whom great veneration and respect is paid by the students of the common law. Such are Glanvil and Bracton, Britton and Fleta, Hengham and Littleton, Statham, Brooke, Fitzherbert and Staundforde, with some others of ancient date, whose treatises are cited as authority, and are evidence that cases have formerly happened in which such and such points were determined, which are now become settled and first principles."-1 Bl. Com. pp. 71, 72.

[N.B.-It would take up too much space to give a full account of the accuracy or inaccuracy of all the old reports. It must suffice here to mention a few judicial criticisms on some of them. The reader is referred to "The Reporters," by Mr. J. W. Wallace, of Philadelphia, 3rd edition, revised (1855), for further information on this subject, where he will find a history of more than 2,000 volumes of reports.— AUTHOR.]

Atkyns (1736-1754).

"The case of Snee v. Baxter (1743), 1 Atk. 245, is miserably reported in the printed book; and it was the misfortune of Lord Hardwicke, and of the public in general, to have many of his determinations published in an incorrect and slovenly way; and perhaps, even he himself by being very diffuse has laid a foundation for doubts which otherwise would never have existed."—Lickbarrow v. Mason (1793), reported in Newsom v. Thornton (1805), 6 East, 21 (n.), at p. 29 (n.), Buller, J.

66

Unfortunately Lord Hardwicke's judgments in general are known only by Mr. Atkyns' Reports, which are extremely in

accurate."-Olive v. Smith (1813), 5 Taunt. 56, at p. 63, Mansfield, C. J.

66

Barnardiston (1726—1735).

Lord Mansfield absolutely forbid the citing that book [Barnardiston's Rep. in Chancery]: for it would be only misleading students to put them upon reading it. He said it was marvellous, however, to those who knew the serjeant and his manner of taking notes, that he should so often stumble upon what was right; but yet, that there was not one case in his book which was so throughout."-Zouch d. Woolston v. Woolston (1761), 2 Burr. 1142 (marginal note).

66

Barnardiston was a bad reporter."-The King v. Stone (1801), 1 East, 639, at p. 642 (n.).

Blackstone, W. (1746-1780).

"Mr. Justice Blackstone's reports are not very accurate."-Devon v. Watts (1779), 1 Doug. 89, at p. 93 (n.), Lord Mansfield, C. J. (Willes, Ashhurst and Buller, JJ., concurred in opinion with his Lordship).

"Mr. Justice Blackstone's reports are not very accurate.”—Hassells v. Simpson (1781), 1 Doug. 89, at p. 93, Lord Mansfield.

Coke (1572-1616).

"Some of the most valuable of the ancient reports are those published by Lord Chief Justice Coke, a man of infinite learning in his profession, though not a little infected with the pedantry and quaintness of the times he lived in, which appear strongly in all his works. However, his writings are so highly esteemed, that they are generally cited without the author's name."-1 Bl. Com. p. 72.

Hobart (1603-1625).

"His excellent volume of reports."-Troward v. Cailland (1795), 6 T. R. 439, at p. 441, Lord Kenyon, C. J.

Keble (1661-1679).

"It must, however, be admitted that Keble is of no high repute as an accurate reporter; and the Court would be slow to act on a case in that book, if it were unsupported by others."