Page images

dent's factory for over thirty years. He was a man of a cheerful temperament and of exemplary character. On the 4th Dec. 1913 his right eye was injured by red-hot splinters of metal entering it while performing his duties for his employer. The probability of the sight of the injured eye being much impaired or even lost altogether was great. He was treated by an eye specialist on the 19th Dec., and was advised to discontinue his work, but, notwithstanding that advice and that he was suffering great pain, he went to his work on the 20th Dec. at 5 a.m., and very shortly afterwards he was discovered dead, having been shot in the head with a pistol which was still in his hand. At the inquest which was subsequently held, the verdict of the jury was that the workman had committed suicide while in a state of unsound mind. The evidence went to show that after the accident he became very depressed, and that his whole condition was altered. The medical evidence was to the effect that the workman was greatly depressed by the accident which he had met with, and that in the case of eye injuries there was a risk of insanity supervening thereon. Notice of the accident was not given to the respondent" as soon as practicable after the happening thereof," as required by sect. 2, sub-sect. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, it not having been given by the dependant's solicitor until the 23rd Dec., nearly three weeks after the happening of the accident. It was decided by the County Court judge that, having regard to the medical evidence that insanity might supervene on the injury to the workman's eye, there was sufficient evidence to justify him in finding that the workman was suffering from insanity at the time when he committed suicide; and that the condition was the result of "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment" of the workman, within the meaning of sect. 1 of the Act, entitling the dependant of the workman to compensation. The respondent appealed.

Held, that insanity was not a matter of presumption, but must be founded on evidence; that suicide was in itself no proof of insanity; that the County Court judge was wrong in deciding that there was evidence to justify his finding of insanity; and that on that ground alone the appeal must succeed. But held, also, that where an accident, as in the present case, resulted in the death of an injured workman, sect. 2 of the Act applied, and notice must be given, as required by that section, by the dependants of the deceased workman if it had not been given by the workman himself; that no "reasonable cause" had been shown for such want of notice within the meaning of sect. 2, sub-sect. 1 (a); and that there was no evidence that the respondent had not been prejudiced thereby. Appeal allowed.

[Grime v. Fletcher. Ct. of App.: Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R. Swinfen Eady and Phillimore, L.JJ. Jan. 16 and 18.-Counsel: Rigby Swift, K.C. and Adshead Elliott; William Shakespeare and T. Eastham. Solicitors: Rawle, Johnstone, and Co., agents for John Taylor, Blackburn; D. M. Aspden, Chorley.] International Law-Company-Registration in England-Practically whole Share Capital held by Alien Enemies-Contract— Right to sue- -Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 87), ss. 1, 2.


Defendants' appeal from a decision of Scrutton, J. plaintiff company sued on certain bills of exchange dated in May and June 1914. The defendants had accepted the bills before the declaration of war, but the bills had matured, after the declaration of the war, in Sept. and Oct. 1914. The capital of the plaintiff company was, according to the evidence, £25,000 in shares of £1 each, of which £24,998 of the capital was held by Germans and a German company in Hanover. The remaining shares were held by P. B., the managing director, and F. W., the secretary, a British subject, who both resided in England at the date of the declaration of war on the 4th Aug. 1914. The company was an English company registered at Somerset House under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. Since the outbreak of the war the company had been doing business with the British Government and had received money for goods supplied. It also appeared that on the 16th Sept. the company had written to the Committee on Trade with the Enemy on the subject of trading, and had received a reply to the effect that there was nothing to prohibit the company from receiving payment for goods already sold, and that it might continue to sell goods so long as they were not consigned from a hostile country. It was stated that no payment to the plaintiffs since the outbreak of the war had been remitted to alien enemies. The defendants had paid into court the money due on the bills. The second appeal was by the defendants, T. T. Limited, from a judgment of Lush, J. in favour of the same plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs claimed for £5753 as the price of tyres sold and delivered to the defendants before the outbreak of the war. Lush, J. held that a company registered and carrying on business in this country,

although the majority of the share capital was held by alien enemies, is entitled to bring an action for the price of goods sold and delivered, provided it is not employed to sell the goods as the agent of an alien enemy with the intention of remitting the proceeds of the sale abroad. Scrutton, J. in the first case followed the decision of Lush, J. The defendants in both actions appealed.

Held (Buckley, L.J. dissenting), that the character of the plaintiff company had not changed because on the outbreak of war all the shareholders and directors resided in an enemy country and therefore became alien enemies, and the entity created by statute could not be treated during the war as a mere technicality by reason of the enemy character of its shareholders; the court could not decide against the plaintiff company on the ground that to allow it to recover debts during the war would be against public olicy, for nothing would more easily tend to create uncertainty than to allow considerations of public policy, as distinguished from law based upon public policy, to be a ground of judicial decision. Buckley, LJ. (dissenting) held that when all the natural persons who expressed and gave effect to their wishes through the corporation as a legal abstraction were Germans resident in Germany, the corporation could not sue in this country on the ground that those persons who could not sue were as a matter of law, absorbed in a separate legal person which was British and could sue. Appeal dismissed.

[Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited v. Daimler Company Limited; Same v. Thomas Tilling Limited. Ct. of App.: Lord Reading, C.J., Lord Cozens-Hardy, MR., Buckley, Kennedy, Phillimore, and Pickford, L JJ. Dec. 8, 9, 1914, and Jan. 19, 1915.-Counsel: for the Daimler Company Limited, Gore-Browne, K.C. and Maddocks; for Thomas Tilling Limited, Leslie Scott, K.C. and Jowitt; for the plaintiff company, Campbell, K.C. and D. M. Hogg. Solicitors: Andrew Wood, Purves, and Sutton, for R. A. Rotherham, Coventry; Hicklin, Washington, and Pasmore; Stephenson, Harwood, and Co.]

International Law-Landlord and Tenant-Rent in ArrearRemoval of Goods from d mised Premises before Rent dueTenant an Alien Enemy-Proceedings for Recovery of RentLiability of Alien Enemy to be sued-Order for substituted Service-Service on Agent within the Jurisdiction.

Appeal ex parte from an order of Scrutton, J. at chambers. The plaintiff issued a writ against one P. F. (trading as H. G.) to recover a quarter's rent due on the 29th Sept. 1914 under a lease made in 1903 of certain premises situate in H.-square, London. The defendant resided and carried on business as a mantle manufacturer in Berlin, and had for some time before the outbreak of war carried on a branch establishment at the above premises by means of an agent named A. B. According to the affidavit of the plaintiff a quantity of stock was usually kept on the premises, but immediately before the 29th Sept. the whole of the stock, fixtures, and fittings were removed from the premises. On the 28th Sept. the keys of the premises were sent to the plaintiff by A. B., which the plaintiff intimated would be held at the disposal of A. B. as the agent of the defendant. The plaintiff, having issued his writ applied to Scrutton, J. for directions as to the manner of serving it upon the defendant in Berlin. The learned judge gave liberty to the plaintiff to issue a concurrent writ against the defendant, and to serve notice of the writ in Berlin. Application was now made on behalf of the plaintiff to make an order for substituted service of the notice of writ by allowing service of it upon A. B. or otherwise as the court might direct. The second appeal was from an order of Scrutton, J. The plaintiffs, who were hide merchants carrying on business in London and Antwerp, made two contracts in 1914, before the outbreak of the war, with the defendants to sell hides, payment to be made by cash against documents on arrival of the goods at Dunkirk and Antwerp respectively. In August the defendants repudiated the contracts. The plaintiffs in September served a writ on B. as the person in charge of the business of the defendants in London. B. entered a conditional appearance, and took out a summons to set aside the writ or service thereof, on the ground that the sole proprietor of the defendants' business was one A. C., a German subject, residing at Hamburg. B. had full authority to act in all matters in England in respect of the business. An order was made setting aside service of the writ. The plaintiffs then asked for leave to issue a concurrent writ against A. C. for service out of the jurisdiction and for leave to serve notice of such writ out of the jurisdiction, and also for leave to make substi tuted service of the notice of such writ upon B. Scrutton, J. gave leave to issue the concurrent writ and serve notice thereof out of the jurisdiction, but refused leave to make the substituted service. The plaint ffs appealed.

Held, that an alien enemy could be sued or proceeded against during war as it was only permitting subjects of the King or

alien friends to enforce their rights with the assistance of the King against the enemy, and that the proper order in both cases, therefore, was to give the leave to make substituted service and to refer the case to chambers for directions as to the mode of effecting it.

Patent granted to Alien Enemy-Petition by English Company for Revocation-Order for Revocation-Notice of Appeal-Right of Alien Enemy to appeal.

Motion to set aside an appeal on the ground that the appellants were alien enemies. S. and Co. Limited, an English company, presented a petition for revocation of a patent granted to a German subject resident in Germany, of which patent a German company were the owners. The petition was heard by Warrington, J., who made an order on the 28th July 1914 for revocation of the patent, but, if notice of appeal was given on or before the 28th Aug. 1914, the operation of the order was to be suspended until the hearing of the appeal. Notice of appeal was given on the 28th Aug. War was declared between England and Germany on the 4th Aug.

[ocr errors]

Held, that the al en enemy appellants were not the "actors in the proceedings; these were instituted by the petitioners. The appellants must be regarded for this purpose in the same Iosition as a defen fant in a suit who appealed from a judgment given against him. The appellants were therefore entitled not only to appear and be heard on this motion, but to have their appeal heard in the ordinary course notwithstanding.

[Porter v. Freundenberg. Ct. of App.: Lord Reading, C.J., the Master of the Rolls, Buckley, Kennedy, Swinfen Eady, Phillimore, and Pickford, L.JJ. Nov. 19, 25, Dec. 7, 1914, and Jan. 19, 1915.-Counsel: C. E. Fitch; the Attorney-General, Branson, and Nesbitt. Solicitors: W. W. Young, Son, and Ward; Treasury Solicitor.]

[Kreglinger v. S. Samuel and Rosenfeld. Deans. Solicitors: Alfred Double and Sons.]

Counsel: Storry

[Re Merten's Patent Counsel: Walter, K.C. and Courtney Terrell. Solicitors: Bower, Cotton, and Bower; White and Leonard.]

Mine-Coal Mine-Minimum Wage-Wages in Excess of-Action to recover Wages-Claim by Employers to deduct-Regularity and Efficiency of Work-District Rules-Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act 1912 (2 Geo. 5, c. 2), s. 1.

Appeal from a judgment of the Divisional Court (Bankes and Avory, JJ.), reported 110 L. T. Rep. 771; (1914) 2 K. B. 461, affirming a judgment of His Honour Judge Ruegg, sitting at the Longton County Court. The plaintiff was a buttocker employed in a mine belonging to the defendants. The minimum wage in the district for contracting colliers, to which class the plaintiff belonged, was fixed by the joint district board at 7s. a day, the rate for ordinary miners being 68. 6d. Both these amounts were increased by the Conciliation Board to 7s. 3d. a day. The plaintiff was entitled to this wage and, in addition, by the custom of the colliery, to a further sum of 6d. per day, making in all 7s. 9d. He brought an action against the defendants to recover his wages. The defendants claimed the right to make certain deductions on the ground that he had failed to comply with the conditions with regard to regularity and efficiency of work laid down in the district rules made under sect. 1, sub-sect. 2, of the Coal Mines Minimum Wage) Act 1912. In view of this dispute it was contended on behalf of the defendants that the learned County Court judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, since the question between the parties was one which must be decided in accordance with the district rules. The plaintiff contended that he was not suing for the minimum wage, and therefore the Act did not apply. In default of judgment he asked for a non-suit.

Held, that as the County Court judge had found that the claim was based on the minimum wage, the wages being made up of the minimum wage with additions thereto, the Act applied. The plaintiff might have applied for an adjournment until the dispute had been decided by the trade tribunal, but, as he had asked for a non-suit, he had been rightly non-suited. Appeal dismissed.

[Fairbanks v. Florence Coal and Iron Company Limited. Ct. of App.: Buck'ey, Kennedy, and Pickford, L.JJ. Jan. 13 and 14.-Counsel for the plaintiff, Langdon, K.C. and W. Allen ; for the defendants, Greer, K.C. and W. A. Jowitt. Solicitors: Stow, Pres'on, and Lyttelton, for Hollinshead and Moody, Tunstall; M. A. Orgill, for W. H. Breton, Longton.] Rivers Pollution-Polluting Liquid from Manufactory-Proceedings against Local Sanitary Authority-Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 75), ss. 4, 6, 8.

Plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment of the Divisional Court (Ridley and Bankes, JJ.) reported 110 L. T. Rep. 704; (1914) 2 K. B. 13. The Divisional Court held that a local sanitary authority cannot be proceeded against under sect. 4 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 for causing or permitting

any poisonous, noxious, or polluting liquid, proceeding from any manufactory or manufacturing process, to fall or flow or to be carrried into any stream, the section only contemplating proceedings against the owners of manufactories who were responsible for the polluting liquid falling or flowing into the stream. It was contended for the defendants that as sect. 4 occurred in Part 3 of the Act, which deals with manufacturing and mining pollutions, it was only concerned with proceedings against manufacturers and mine owners, and gave no power to one sanitary authority to sue another. Sect. 8 of the Act provides that: Every sanitary authority shall have power to enforce the provisions of this Act in relation to any stream within their district, and for that purpose to institute proceedings in respect of any offence against this Act which causes interference with the due flow within their district of any such stream, or the pollution within their district of any such stream, against any other sanitary authority or person, whether such offence is committed within or without the district of the first-named sanitary authority."

[ocr errors]

Held, that, having regard to the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876, and in particular to sect. 8 thereof, the plaintiff sanitary authority had power to sue the defendant sanitary authority. Appeal allowed.


[West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board v. Linthwaite Urban District Council. Ct. of App.: Buckley, Kennedy, and Pickford, L.JJ. Jan. 12 and 13.-Counsel for the plaintiffs, Scott Fox, K.C. and Lowenthal; for the defendants, Waugh, K.C. and R. A. Shepherd. Solicitors: Clements, Williams, and Co., for H. F. Atter, Wakefield; Edgar Bogue, for Owen and Bailey, Huddersfield.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Interpleader-County Court-Execution-Claimant Partner with Execution Debtor-County Court Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), 8. 156.

Goods which had been taken in execution by the Sheriff of Nottingham were claimed by M. I. as his sole property. The claimant in his affidavit swore that he himself alone was "G. Reeves and Co.," the firm name under which the judgment debtor and G. Reeves were the lessees of the premises upon which the goods had been seized, and that the judgment debtor had no interest in these goods. On payment of £85 to the sheriff by G. Reeves and Co., the sheriff withdrew from possession, and an interpleader issue was tried by the County Court judge with a jury. The jury found that the goods were the property of the judgment debtor and M. I., the claimant, as partners, and not the property of M. I. alone. On these findings the County Court judge held that M. I. had not made out his claim, and that, even if his claim as partner was otherwise good against the execution creditor, he could not set up a partnership which he had sworn did not exist. He accordingly gave judgment for the execution creditor, and against this decision the claimant appealed.

Held (reversing the decision of the County Court judge), that though the jury had found that the goods were not the so'e property of the claimant, yet, as they found they were the property of a partnership existing between the execution debtor and M. I., the claimant had such an interest as would support his claim, and the appeal must be allowed. Wells v. Hughes (97 L. T. Rep. 469) distinguished.

[Flude Limited v. Goldberg; Isaacs, Claimant. K. B. Div.: Ridley and A. T. Lawrence, JJ. Jan. 13.-Counsel: H. J. Rowlands; G. W. Powers. Solicitors: A. de Freece and Co, agents for J J. Spencer, Nottingham; Crowders, Vizard, Oldham, and Co., for Ouston and Co., Leicester.]

Master and Servint-Contract for a Year-Dismissal-Performance of Duties not to Satisfaction of Employer-Honest Dissatisfaction-Reasonable Grounds for Dismissal.

Appeal from a decision of the County Court judge at Brentford entering judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff claimed damages for wrongful dismissal under a contract of employment to fill the position of shop superintendent at the defendants' works at Acton at a yearly salary of £182. The contract contained the following clause: "The engagement will be for one year, subject, of course, to your carrying out your duties to the satisfaction of the directors and to economical costs of production." Four months after, on the 30th April 1914, the works manager wrote informing him that it had been found necessary to dispense with his services from that day, and alleged that he had not carried out his duties satisfactorily "in a manner calculated to inspire me and my directors with the confidence we should have in you for the future success of the company.' The judge left to the jury the following questions: (1) Were the defendants in fact really and genuinely dissatisfied with the plaintiff's discharge of his duties? To this question the jury answered "Yes." (2) If so, had they good reasons for their dissatisfaction? To this the jury

answered "No." On these findings judgment was entered for the defendants, the jury having assessed the plaintiff's damages at £52 16s. 8d. The plaintiff appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that judgment was rightly entered for the respondents, it not being necessary under such a contract to satisfy a jury that there was reasonable cause for the dismissal.

[Diggle v. Ogston Motor Company Limited. K. B. Div.: Ridley and A. T. Lawrence, JJ. Jan. 13 and 14.-Counsel: T. Drury, K.C. and Doughty; Spencer Bower, K.C. and Walter Warren. Solicitors: Mills, Locker, and Mills; Engall and Crane.] Practice-Action in this Country for Declarations of Rights to assist Action in foreign Country-Rules of Supreme Court-Order XXV., r. 5-Order LIVA., r. 1.

An action was pending in New York between the G. Company and the H. Company. The point of the case was whether a person who purchased drafts with accompanying b lls of lading and sends the drafts forward with the bills of lading attached warranted the genuineness of the bills of lading to the acceptors of the drafts. An action ra sing the same point was brought in England by the H. Company against the G. Company asking the court to make certain declarations as to the relevant English law. On a summons by the defendants to strike out the indorsement on the writ: It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the power to make declarations where no further or substantial relief was claimed was given as defined by Order XXV. r. 5; and that declarations can only be made under that order (1) as ancillary to putting some right in the person asking the declaration in suit; (2) at the instance of the party who desires to use the declaration to support some right which he desires to enforce. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that by the joint effect of Order XXV., r. 5, and Order LIVA, r. 1, the declarations should be made.

Held (following The Manar, 89 L. T. Rep. 218; (1903) P. 95), that the action would be allowed to proceed.

[Guarantee Trust Company v. A. Hannay and Co. K. B. Div. Com. Ct.: Bailhache, J. Jan. 14 and 18.-Counsel: Duke, K.C and Hogg; Greer, K.C. and A. R. Kennedy. Solicitors Crosley and Burn; Pritchard, Englefield, and Co., for Simpson, North, Harley, and Co., Liverpool.] Practice-Costs-Findings of Jury-Separate Issues-Direction by Judge necessary-Order LXV., rr.‍1, 2.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for £60 money lent, made up of two separate sums of £10 and £50, alleged to have been lent on different occasions. The defendant contended that the transactions were not loans, but advances of money upon a joint adventure. At the trial the jury found that the £10 was a loan, but that the £50 was not. Upon these findings the learned judge entered judgment for the plaintiff for the £10, but refused to give him any costs. He made no order on the issue on which the defendant was successful, being of opinion that, as the two sums of money were clearly separate issues, the defendant was entitled to his costs under Order LXV. Tr. 1, 2, and that no order was necessary. The associate drew up his certificate setting out the findings of the jury and the judgment entered, and added, "the judge made no order as to costs." The officials of the judgment department, however, refused to enter judgment without a direction of the judge as to whether the findings of the jury were "issues" within the meaning of Order LXV., rr. 1, 2. The practice followed by the judgment department had been, in cases where questions were submitted to a jury and answers given to those questions, to treat each question and answer as a separate issue, and to enter judgment for the unsuccessful party for the costs of each issue which the jury had answered in his favour, even though the associate's certificate contained no direction from the judge that such a course should be followed. The Court of Appeal, however, in the recent case of Howell v. Dering (111 L. T. Rep 790; (1915) 1 K. B. 54, decided that it was wrong to assume that, because separate questions were put to a jury, each question necessarily constituted a separate issue. In consequence of this decision the officials of the judgment department took the view that they would be exceeding their jurisdiction if they followed their former practice and decided what were and what were not separate issues in any action.

Held, on further consideration, that the view taken by the officials of the judgment department was the correct one, their functions being merely ministerial, and that it was the duty of the judge who tried the case to decide whether there was any separate issue upon which the unsuccessful party was entitled to his costs. The issues being clearly separate issues in this case, the defendant was entitled to the costs on the issue as to the £50, and the associate's certificate would be amended accordingly.

[Bush v Rogers. K B. Div.: H. S. Simmons; P. B. Morle. Charles Samuel Tomlinson; Daphne.]

Bankes, J. Jan. 19.-Counsel: Solicitors for the plaintiff, for the defendant, Frank



Messrs. Butterworth and Co. have sent us vol. 7 of their Workmen's Compensation Cases which contains reports of every case heard by the superior courts of England and selected cases from Scotland and Ireland from Oct. 1913 to Oct. 1914. The editors of this very useful series are His Honour Judge Ruegg, K.C., and Mr. Douglas Knocker, assisted by Mr. Edgar T. Dale.

Mr. Walter S. Schwabe, assisted by Mr. Philip Guedalla, has brought out a timely work, The Effect of War on Stock Exchange Transactions (Effingham Wilson). He discusses the Emergency Legislation with reference to his subject, and gives in appendices the statutes and proclamations, together with the rules, resolutions, and notices of the Stock Exchange Committee.


There are few practitioners and students who are not well acquainted with Professor Dicey's Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Macmillan and Co.), and a new edition-the eighth-is very welcome. And this is specially so, for, although the body of the work is in substance a reprint of the seventh edition, it is accompanied by a new introduction of some 100 pages which compares the Constitution as it stood in 1884, the date of the first edition, and as it now stands in 1914. The topics thus discussed are the Sovereignty of Parliament, the Rule of Law, the Law and the Conventions of the Constitution, and New Constitutional Ideas.

Messrs. Stevens and Sons Limited have just published the fourth edition of that well-known work, Godefroi on Trusts and Trustees, by Mr. Sydney Edward Williams. The present issue has been considerably altered, and, owing to the omission of matter not relevant to the subject and by the careful elimination of cases covered by subsequent authorities, the bulk of the book has been reduced. It is an eminently practical and useful work.


We have often before expressed our high appreciation of the Magistrate's General Practice, by Mr. C. M. Atkinson (Stevens and Sons; Sweet and Maxwell). The edition for 1915-the twelfth has been published, and contains all the numerous alterations rendered necessary by the legislation of the past twelve months. It is a book which no court of summary jurisdiction can afford to do without.

The Lawyer's Remembrancer and Pocket Book 1915, by Mr. Arthur Powell, K.C., assisted by Mr. H. B. Welford (Butterworth and Co.), contains a large amount of practical information for the Profession in a small space.

We have received from Messrs. Sweet and Maxwell Limited and Stevens and Sons Limited, the Annual County Courts Practice 1915, edited by His Honour Judge Smyly, K.C., and Mr. W. J. Brooks, this being its second issue in new form. Mr. Gilbert Stone is responsible for the chapter on Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation, Costs and Court Fees being dealt with by Messrs. Whitelock and Lowe, the Birmingham registrars, and Admiralty and Merchant Shipping by Mr. H. H. Sanderson. The Emergency Legislation and rules thereunder are duly noted.

Messrs. Shaw and Sons have sent us The Tithe Rentcharge Tab'e, showing at a glance the yearly and half-yearly values of any tithe rentcharge for the year 1915, being the seventy-ninth annual issue. It is by Mr. Percy William Millard, and contains tables of the official fees payable on the redemption and merger of tithe rentcharge, income tax table, and a summary of the law relating to the collection, redemption, and merger of tithe rentcharge.

We have received from Messrs. Robert Maclehose and Co. Limited a History of the Standard Bank of Sonth Africa 18621913, written by the late Mr. G. T. Amphlett. It is an interesting record of a great financial concern, and gives much information as to the progress during the period in South Africa.

The Prevention and Control of Monopolies, by W. Jethro Brown (London: John Murray). Professor Jethro Brown acted as chairman of an Australian Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the sugar industry. The scope of the reference involved an exhaustive examination of the effect of monopolies. Some years' study of the subject has thus been terminated by this close contact with the practical actualities. The object of the book, in which the learned author has embodied his views more fully than was possible in the report, is to consider the questions within what limits monopolies should be prevented, how the prevention should be effected, and how, where a policy of prevention is undesirable or impracticable, monopolies should be regulated or controlled. His chief proposal is the establishment of a permanent commission of a semi-judicial character for their supervision and regulation. This comprehensive survey of a difficult problem will be appreciated by students of its economic, political, and legal aspects The book might have been provided with an index with advantage.

[blocks in formation]



Alfreton, Monday (J.S. & A.0.),

at 11

[blocks in formation]

Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, at 10; Thursday (J.S.), at 10.30; Friday, at 10

Brentford. Friday (J.S.), at 10 Bridgend, Thursday and Saturday Bridgwater, Friday, at 10

Brigg, Monday, at 10

Brighton, Thursday, at 10

Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wed

nesday, and Thursday, at 10; Friday (By), at 11

Buckingham, Tuesday, at 10 Burnley, Friday (R. By), at 10.30 Caistor, Thursday, at 10

Cambridge, Tuesday, at 11; Wednesday, at 10

Chippenham, Tuesday, at 10.15 Clacton-on-Sea, Tuesday, at 10.30 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday (J.S.). Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Clitheroe, Thursday, at 9.45

[blocks in formation]

E. C. P. HULL, Esq., J.P., Treasurer and Chairman. An ideal home for those requiring control with expert supervision, and needing Special Training in Useful Occupations.

SCHOOLS, FARMING, TRADE-WORKSHOPS. Trust Funds available for the Children of Barristers, Solicitors, and Clergy of Church of England. Selected Cases admitted on Reduced inclusive Fees at the rate of One Guinea a Week. Those Unable to Pay admitted by votes of Subscribers, either free or with part-payment.

Life Maintenance of Patients can be purchased at less than usual Annuity Rates.

Legacies as Endowments, or towards Sustentation Fund create lasting benefits for special needs. Full information of Mr. H. HOWARD, Secretary,

14-16, Ludgate-hill, E.C. Telephone: 5297 City.

Colchester, Wednesday, at 10
Derby, Tuesday (County Courts
Act 1903, if necessary; R. By at
11), at 10.30; Wednesday, at 10;
Thursday (JS. & A.O.), at 10.30
Dereham, Monday, at 11
Diss, Monday

Dover, Wednesday, at 10
Droitwich, Saturday, at 10
Durham, Tuesday (R. By)
East Grinstead, Wednesday
Edmonton, Friday, at 10
Faringdon, Saturday, at 10
Folkestone, Tuesday, at 10
Goole, Tuesday

Grantham, Friday, at 10.30
Great Grimsby, Tuesday, at 10;
Wednesday, at 10.30
Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Halstead, Monday, at 12
Harwich, Thursday, at 12

Haslingden,* Friday, at 9.30
Hedon, Monday

Hexham and Bellingham, Friday,

at 10

Holbeach. Friday, at 10
Horsham, Tuesday

Hungerford, Monday, at 11.15
Hythe, Monday, at 12
Keighley, Wednesday, at 10
Kendal, Tuesday, at 10.30
Kingsbridge, Monday, at 10.30
Kingston-on-Thames, Tuesday
Lambeth. Monday, Tuesday, Wed-
nesday, and Thursday, at 10.30
Leeds, Monday (J.S. & A.O.), Wed-
nesday, Thursday, and Friday,
at 10
Leicester, Tuesday. Wednesday,
and Thursday, at 10; Saturday
(special), at 9.30
Liverpool, Monday (By at 11),
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Friday (B., A., & W.C.), at


Llangollen, Monday


Lynn, Thursday, at 10

Manchester. Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10
Marylebone, Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday. Thursday, and Fri-
day, at 10.30

Melton Mowbray, Friday, at 10
Mildenhall, Saturday

Newbury, Wednesday (R. By at 2), at 10

Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday (R. By), at 10

Northampton, Tuesday (R. By), at 12; Wednesday (Reg.), at 10

[blocks in formation]

Ormskirk, Tuesday, at 10
Penrith, Wednesday, at 10
Penzance, Tuesday, at 10
Portsmouth, Monday (R. By), at
11; Thursday (C.S.), at 10.30
Preston, Tuesday, at 10
Reading, Thursday and Friday
Rochdale, Monday (J.S.), at 9.30
Ruthin, Tuesday

St. Austell,* Monday, at 10
St. Helens, Wednesday

Salford, Tuesday and Wednesday
Sheerness, Thursday, at 10
Sheffield, Wednesday,


(By at 2), and Friday, at 10 Shoreditch, Thursday

Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10

Southampton, Wednesday (R. By), at 12

Southwark, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, at 10.30

Sunderland, Thursday (R. By)

Swansea, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday

Swindon, Wednesday (By at 11), at 10.30

Taunton, Tuesday, at 10
Tiverton, Wednesday, at 10
Totnes. Tuesday, at 10,30
Uppingham, Monday, at 10.30
Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10
Wallingford, Thursday, at 11
Walsall, Wednesday (J.S.)
Wandsworth, Monday
Wantage, Friday, at 12
Wareham, Monday, at 10
Wellington (Somerset).
at 11


Westbromwich, Tuesday, and Friday (J.S.)

Westminster, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday

Whitchurch, Thursday, at 10 Whitechapel. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday Wigan, Tuesday (R. By at 2.15), at 9


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The order of the Government of the South African Union, based on the report of the court of inquiry that they were unwilling rebels forced into rebellion by Maritz, that those members of the defence force who did not deliberately join the rebellion shall be released conditionally upon their being of good behaviour, will direct attention to the fact that, by our criminal law, compulsion by threats of serious present injury to person is recognised as an excuse for crime in cases in which the compulsion is applied by a body of rebels and rioters, and in which the offender takes a subordinate part in the offence. The case of the unwilling rebels in South Africa and the method of dealing with them are invested with a very special interest, having regard to the fact that there has been seldom occasion to consider a case of this character. "In the course," writes Sir Fitzjames Stephen," of nearly thirty years' experience at the Bar and on the Bench, during which I have paid special attention to the administration of the criminal law, I never knew or heard of the defence of compulsion being made except in the case of married women, and I have not been able to find more than two reported cases which bear One of them is the case of on it. man compelled by threas of death to join the rebel army in 1745, these threats continuing during the whole of his service (R. v. McGrowther, 18 State Trials, p. 394), the other the case of persons compelled (I suppose by threats of personal violence) to take a formal part in breaking threshing machines


by a mob of rioters so employed": (R. v. Crutchley, 5 C. & P., p. 133; Stephen's History of the Criminal Law of England, ii., p. 106; see also Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law, art. 31, p. 18). The decision of the Cape Government, that it is proper and necessary in the public interest to bring to trial by military courts those who rebelled deliberately, and that no pardon will be granted to the unwilling rebels for the legal consequences of their wrongful action until Parliament decides the question, are in accord with the matured opinion of Sir Fitzjames Stephen on this subject, which he says is one of little importance though it has considerable theoretical interest. He lays stress on the fact that it is at the moment when temptation to crime is strongest that the law should speak_most clearly and emphatically to the contrary, and thus proceeds: "It is, of course, a misfortune for a man that he should be placed between two fires, but it would be a much greater misfortune for society at large if criminals could confer impunity upon their agents by threatening them with death or violence if they refused to execute their commands. If impunity could be so secured, a wide door would be open to collusion and encouragement would be given to associations of malefactors secret or otherwise. No doubt the moral guilt of a person who commits a crime under compulsion is less than that of a person who commits it freely, but any effect which is thought proper may be given to this circumstance by a proportional mitigation of the offender's punishment."


Married Woman Trader Ceasing to Trade.

THE statutory provisions applicable to the recent case of Re A Debtor (noted ante, p. 250) are contained in sect 1, subsect. 5, of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75). And the question whether the principle of Re Dagnall; Ex parte Soan and Morley (75 L. T. Rep. 142; (1896) 2 Q. B. 497)—the authority that is always cited in cases of this description-was or was not what governed the facts of the present case gave rise to a difference of opinion in the Divisional Court, consisting of Justices Horridge and Rowlatt. Those facts are sufficiently close to common form to render the case of some importance when trading by a married woman is alleged to have ceased to be carried on. The daughter of a deceased corn merchant continued to carry on his business, and incurred debts in respect of it. In June 1913 she ceased actively to carry on the business and ordered a sale thereof. On the 24th July she committed an act of bankruptcy under sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 (h), of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52) by sending out a circular to her creditors. On the following day she married. In October a bankruptcy petition was presented based upon the act of bankruptcy committed in July. In November the petition came on to be heard before the registrar, at which date the debtor had still a small amount of goods of the business, and a few book debts remained uncollected. The question was whether the debtor had in June ceased to carry or business, and was not, therefore, at the date of the hearing of the bankruptcy petition, a married woman carrying on business. Mr. Justice Horridge was of opinion that the decision in Re Dagnall (ubi sup.) was distinguishable, and that the question was answerable in the affirmative. Mr. Justice Rowlatt, on the other hand, considered that the principle of Re Dagnall (ubi sup.) applied. In that case a married woman, who had by carrying on trade separately from her husband made herself liable under the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to the operation of the bankruptcy laws, sold her business. A fortnight later through her solicitors she issued a circular to her trade creditors, which amounted to an intimation to suspend payment. It was decided by the Divisional Court, consisting of Justices Williams and Wright, that she was carrying on trade within the meaning of sect. 1, sub-sect. 5, of the Act of 1882 until she paid off all her trade debts, and was subject to the bankruptcy laws. In Re Worsley; Ex parte Lambert (84 L. T. Rep. 100; (1901) 1 K. B. 309), the decision of the Divisional Court in Re Dagnall (ubi sup.) was approved. And it was held that if debts incurred by a married woman tr. der in connection with her business, carried on by her separately from her husband, remained undischarged at the date of a bankruptcy petition presented against her, she was

subject to the bankruptcy laws in respect of her separate property under sect. 1, sub-sect. 5, of the Act of 1882, although she had then ceased to carry on business. When two learned judges have found it impossible to concur in the view as to the applic. ability or non-applicability of the principle of the authorities above cited, well may the question be regarded as one of no little difficulty. We confess that we incline to the opinion that the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt, rather than that of Mr. Justice Horridge, should commend itself to the practitioner. But it is undoubtedly a matter for the Court of Appeal to determine.


Mr. Justice Atkin will to-day (Saturday) open the commission at Presteign, on the South Wales Circuit,

Mr. Justice Darling will leave London on Monday next for Exeter, on the Western Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Scrutton, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence will leave London on Monday next for Liverpool, on the Northern Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Sankey, and will open the commission on the following day.

Mr. Justice Lush will open the commission at Mold, on the North Wales Circuit, on Thursday next. At the conclusion of the business at this town he will return to London and remain until Wednesday, the 24th prox., when he will return to the second part of the circuit, being joined by Mr. Justice Atkin, and will open the commission on the following day.

The Lord Chief Justice will not go to Liverpool and Manchester, on the Northern Circuit, at the ensuing winter assizes as originally arranged, but Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence will go in his place.

Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Bailhache have appointed the following commission days for holding the winter assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit-viz.: Newcastle, Monday, Feb. 22; Durham, Saturday, Feb. 27; York, Saturday, March 6; and Leeds, Thursday, March 11.

The first February Sittings at the Mayor's Court will commence on Monday, the 1st prox., at eleven o'clock, and the second sittings will commence on Monday, the 22nd prox, also at eleven o'clock.

Owing to the war the annual dinner of the City of London Solicitors' Company has been abandoned for the present year. A memorial service was held in the Lincoln's-inn Chapel on Thursday last for the Right Hon. Lord Justice Kennedy.

The Temple Church will hold a special service to-morrow afternoon at three o'clock p.m., after which the choir will render part of Mendelssohn's "St. Paul."

The new West London Police-court, which has been erected practically on the site of the old one in Southcombe-street, West Kensington, was opened on the 18th inst.

The Lord Chancellor has nominated Mr. Justice Neville to be the judge of the Chancery Division for the purposes mentioned in rule 7 of the rules made in pursuance of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886.

Sir William Markby, K.C.I.E., D.C.L., aged eighty-five, of Headington Hill, Oxford, J.P. for Oxon, and a county alderman, for many years Reader in Indian Law at Oxford, formerly Recorder of Buckingham, afterwards Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, left unsettled property £16,924.

The Lord Chief Justice of England will on Wednesday next, the 27th inst., in the Judges' Quadrangle, Royal Courts of Justice, at 1.45 p.m., formally hand over to the Red Cross Society the motor ambulance subscribed for by the law clerks of England and Wales. The Hon. Charles Russell will accept the same on behalf of the Red Cross Society. A sum of £350 will also be handed over towards maintenance and running expenses.

Professor Sir John Macdonell will deliver the first of a course of lectures upon "Comparative Law: its Methods and Future," at University College, Gower-street, W.C., on Wednesday next, at 5.30 p.m. The professor's prizes of £10 and £12 for essays upon the subjects dealt with in the lectures will be awarded at the end of the session. The lectures are free and without ticket. They are intended not only for lawyers, but for students of political science and sociology, and for journalists.

The Medico-Legal Society will hold their next meeting on Tuesday, the 26th inst., at 11, Chandos street, Cavendishsquare, W., at 8.30 p.m. Sir John Collie, M.D., will read a paper "Fraudulent and Neurasthenic Cases," the discussion upon which will be opened by Mr. F. O. Arnold, M.A., M.B.


« EelmineJätka »