Kennedy, agreeing with the view taken by the County Court judge, came to the conclusion that the workman's entrance into the place in question was merely an act done honestly in furtherance of the object which he was instructed to effect-i.e., drilling a hole; while Lord Justice Buckley was equally convinced that the place was altogether outside the scope of the workman's employment. On such a doubtful question, it is not in the least surprising that this divergence of opinion should have occurred. Putting aside, as unnecessary to be considered, anv complication arising from the workman's perversity in ignoring official directions, all that had to be decided was whether the sphere of his employment was so limited and defined as to exclude the "top hole,' as it is styled. The Scotch case cf Conway v. Pumpheraton Oil Company Limited (1911, 1 Scots Law Times, 440) was accepted by the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Kennedy as a guide to their decision, being treated as undistinguishable from the present case. Lord Justice Buckley, on the other hand, preferred to take Weighill v. South Heaton Coal Com pany Limited (4 Butterworth's W. C. C. 141)-a case decided by the Court of Appeal last March-as an authority more in point. Indeed, it seemed to his Lordship to be identical with Harding's case (ubi sup.). To compare, and attempt to reconcile, the ever-growing mass of Beemingly conflicting judicial decisions on the vital question as to what is, and what is not, an "accident arising out of and in the course of the employment of a workman is fast becoming a task beyond all human ingenuity. "Confusion worse confounded," it is, as each fresh "bead" is added to the lengthy "roll." Relatively far simpler to be dealt with were the facts in the case of Rose v. Morrison and Mason Limited (noted ante, p. 148), which came before the Court of Appeal on the same day as Harding's case (ubi sup.) was argued. There the workman had, with inconceivable recklessness, as in Harding's case (ubi sup.), voluntarily entered a dangerous place. He stooped down and entered a hoist for a particular purpose of his own, and as it was in the course of being worked be was inevitably crushed to death. There was no ground for assuming that it was through inadvertence that he got into the hoist, for although the accident happened at night time, the spot where the hoist was erected was amply illuminated. Furthermore, the fact that it was necessary for him to stoop to enter the hoist precluded any suggestion that he did so not perceiving where he was going. Under those circumstances none of the learned judges of the Court of Appeal felt any difficulty in upholding the finding of the County Court judge that the dependants of the workman were entitled to compensation. On no account could it be successfully maintained that the risk which the workman had taken was one necessary or reasonably incident to his employment, so as to establish that the statutory requirement had been complied with.

THE CONVEYANCER.

A FEW words about the apportionment of dividends and income as between tenant for life and remainderman, and otherwise, may not be out of place. A point which perhaps is not generally understood is that in apportioning dividends on shares it is important to ascertain the data up to which the dividend is declared, which is generally a few weeks before it is declared. The Apportionment Act 1870, s. 2, provided that after the passing of that Act all rents, annuities, dividends, and other periodical payments in the nature of income should, like interest on money lent, be considered as accruing from day to day, and be apportionable in respect of time accordingly, and by sect. 5 the word dividends" is to include all payments made by the name of dividend, bonus, or otherwise out of the revenue of trading or other public companies divisible between all or any of the members of such companies, whether usually declared at any fixed times or otherwise, and all such divisible revenue is for the purpose of the Act to be deemed to have accrued by equal daily increment during and within the period for or in respect of which the payment of the same revenue shall be declared or expressed to be made." But the word dividend" is not to include payments in the nature of a return or reimbursement of capital. Every company registered under the Companies Act 1862 is a company within the meaning of the term in the Apportionment Act: (Re Lysaght; Lysaght v. Lysaght, 77 L. T. Rep. 637; (1898) 1 Ch. 115). This being so, if a dividend be declared after the death of the testator for a period ending in his lifetime, it is submitted that the tenant for life would not be entitled to any part of such dividend. The point arose incidentally and presumably was decided in Re Oppenheimer; Oppenheimer v. Boatman (96 L. T. Rep. 631; (1907) i Ch. 391). There a testator bequeathed shares in a limited company to his trustees upon trust to pay "the income arising there from wife for life. He died on the 4th Jan. 1906. Some time after his death a dividend for the financial year ending the 31st Oct. 1905 was declared; an interim dividend for the next financial year had been declared, but the full dividend was not yet declared. The company's articles provided in effect that every dividend should be deemed to accrue and fall due upon the day on which it was declared, and not before, and should belong and be paid to those members who should be on the register at the date when such dividend was declared. The main question for decision was whether the articles did not amount to an express stipulation against apportionment within sect. 7 of the said Act, which provides that it is not to extend to any case in which it is expressly stipulated that no apportionment shall take place. The form of the question

to his

66

in the summons was whether the dividends declared since the testator's death belonged to her as income, or whether they were apportionable under the Act, so that the whole dividend for the financial year ending the 1st Oct. 1905 and an apportioned part of the accruing dividend for the following year belonged to the testator's estate, and it was decided by the court that the articles did not amount to an express stipulation against apportionment, and that the dividends were therefore apportionable between the testator's estate and the widow. The question whether the whole dividend for the financial year ending the 31st Oct. 1905 formed part of the corpus of the estate is not expressly dealt with in the judgment as reported, but, as the whole of it accrued prior to the death of the testator, it is submitted that it was part of the capital of his estate, and therefore was not apportionable. Another question of not infrequent occurrence is whether the Act applies to an occasional payment by way of bonus or surplus profits, as, for instance, where the payments were made under the deed of settlement of a life assurance society providing for distribution of a bonus or surplus profits among its shareholders once in every five years, unless a special meeting of shareholders should otherwise direct. In Re Griffith; Carr v. Griffith (41 L. T. Rep. 540; 12 Ch. Div. 655) it was held that the Act applied in such a case. A question germane to this, but not strictly one of apportionment, is whether, as between tenant for life and remainderman, bonus dividends-that is, bonuses declared out of accumulated profits-are. to be treated as capital or income. The question depends on the power of the company to capitalise its profits, and on its exercise of that power. If the company has power either to distribute its profits as dividends or to convert them into capital, the decision of the company in accordance with its regulations is binding on everybody interested under the settlement: (see Bouch v. Sproule, 57 L. T. Rep. 345; 12 App. Cas. 385, where the bonus dividend was held to be capital). But if a company, having power before recommending a dividend to set aside out of profits a reserve fund for equalising dividends, &c., resolves to divide its accumulated profits as dividends, any dividends so allotted in respect of settled shares belong to the life tenant as income, even though described as special bonus" (see Re Alsbury, 63 L. T. Rep. 576; 45 Ch. Div. 237). The Act does not apply to the profits of a private trading partnership (see Jones v. Ogle, 28 L. T. Rep. 245; L. Rep. 8 Ch. 192), nor to the profits arising from a newspaper (Re Cox's Trusts, 9 Ch. Div. 159), as they are not dividends or periodical payments within the meaning of the Act. The Act applies to specific devises and bequests: (see Capron v. Capron, 29 L. T. Rep. 826; L. Rep. 17 Eq. 288; and Pollock v. Pollock, 30 L. T. Rep. 779; L. Rep. 18 Eq. 329). But, of course, there would be no apportionment if the testator specifically bequeathed all the dividends of certain shares to a legatee, as in Jones v. Ogle (before cited). The question of apportionment sometimes arises upon a change of investment. Stock ought to be sold so as to make the time of accruer of the last dividend the starting point as nearly as practicable for the commencement of the interest on the new investment. If, however, the stock is sold on an intermediate day between two dividends, although the price may be increased by the near approach of the dividend, it is not the practice to pay to the tenant for life the estimated amount of the current dividend out of the proceeds (see Scholefield v. Redfern, 8 L. T. Rep. 487; 2 Dr. & Sm. 173; and Re Sir Robert Peel's Settled Estates, 102 L. T. Rep67; (1910) 1 Ch. 389). In that case, upon the direction of a tenant for life, trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts had invested capital moneys in their hands in the purchase of stocks on which at the date of purchase dividends had been earned and declared, but not paid, and it was held that the tenant for life was not entitled to such dividends. Mr. Justice Warrington in the course of his judgment said: "Now there is here, of course, no question of apportionment. Treating the dividends as accruing de die in diem, the whole of the dividends had been earned and had accrued before the purchase in question." And after referring to the cases of Bulkeley v. Stephens (hereinafter mentioned), Scholefield v. Redfern (before cited), and Froman v. Whitbread (13 L. T. Rep. 550; L. Rep. 1 Eq. 266), he said: "All those cases have to do with the purchase or sale, as the case may be, during a half year-that is to say, during a dividend-earning period; and I think it appears from the judgment in Schole field v. Redfern, which is referred to at some length by Mr. Justice Stirling in Bulkeley v. Stephens, that the reason why the court has in the case of a purchase under those circumstances declined to apportion the dividend as against the tenant for life, and has in the case of a sale declined to apportion the dividend in favour of the tenant for life, has always been the difficulty there is under such circumstances in arriving at the true sum-that is, at that part of the purchase money-which is to be treated as representing the dividend for that purpose. In this case no such difficulty arises. dividends have been earned at the time of this contract, and the real state of things is simple. For convenience, the vendor is to receive the dividend so earned, but he has to pay it over again to the purchaser. The purchaser, in fact, pays to the vendor the amount of such dividend; the vendor holds that in his hands until he receives the dividend, and then he pays the dividend to the purchaser. In that case, where the dividends, as here, have been entirely earned before the investment was made by the trustees, it seems to me that the dividends form part of the capital." In Bulkeley v. Stephens (74 L. T. Rep. 409; (1896) 2 Ch. 241) the facts were shortly as follows: Certain Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation Stock, forming part of a testator's residu ary estate,

The

was limited by his will upon trust for his wife for life, and after her death "to pay, transfer, and assign my residuary estate, and the stocks, funds, and securities upon which the same shall be invested, unto and amongst" certain beneficiaries. After the death of the tenant for life the said stock was sold "cum div." under an order of the court for the purpose of distribution. After the sale a dividend was declared and received by the purchaser in respect of profits, a portion of which had been earned prior to the death of the tenant for life. It was held. that the estate of the tenant for life was not entitled, under the Apportionment Act 1870, to be paid out of the purchase money of the stock anything in respect of the dividend; but, inasmuch as if the trust had been strictly carried out in accordance with the terms of the will, by transferring the investments to the beneficiaries, the representatives of the tenant for life would have been in a position, either directly or through the trustees, to obtain payment of an apportioned part of the dividend, their claim ought under the special circumstances of the case to be acceded to. The decision seems to have turned almost entirely on the fact that the order to sell the stock was made in the absence of the legal personal representatives of the tenant for life. If such personal representatives had been present, they might have urged with success that the tenant for life's estate ought not to be placed in a worse position than if the trust had been carried out in the strict and proper mode-namely, by transfer to the legatees. The latest decision on the Act appears to be that of Re Ford; Myers v. Molesworth (104 L. T. Rep. 245; (1911) 1 Ch. 455), where the facts were shortly as follows: M. F., who was tenant for life of the P. and T. Settled Estates, by her will bequeathed to the person next entitled to the freehold of the P. and T. Estates "all arrears of rent in respect of the same estates which shall then be due to me." The testatrix died on the 4th March 1910. The rents belonging to the estate were payable quarterly, according to the tenancy agreements, on the usual quarter days, but were collected half-yearly at Michaelmas and Lady Day. Held, by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady, that the bequest included not only all arrears due at the preceding Michaelmas and unpaid, but the rents due at Christmas and the apportioned part accrued from Christmas to the death. In other words, that the language which the testatrix had used was wide enough to include, and did include, all rent up to the death as apportioned under the Act.

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

In the House of Lords the following causes will be taken on Monday next at 10.45: Moss Steamship Company Limited v. Whinney (consideration); Pott, Cassels, and Williamson and others v. Watson Laidlaw and Co. Limited (consideration), and John D. Hope and Co. and another v. Glendinning (consideration).

Admiralty appeals (with assessors) will be continued in Appeai Court I. on Tuesday next.

Mr. Justice Warrington (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench Division) will take non-jury cases on the following daya: 27th and 28th June, 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, and 13th July. All applications in the non-jury list must be made in this court.

Mr. Justice Neville (sitting as an additional judge of the King's Bench Division) will take the case of Matthews v. Stanley (non-jury) on Wednesday next at 10.15.

The courts of the King's Bench Division will be closed on Thursday, the 29th June.

In the Railway and Canal Commission Court, judgment will be delivered in Weaver and Co. Limited v. Great Western Railway Company on Tuesday, the 27th inst., at 10.30 o'clock.

Mr. Justice Avory having finished the business at Chelmsford, on the South-Eastern Circuit, last Monday returned to town and took his seat in court on the following day, proceeding with the common jury list. He will now remain in London until the end of the present eittings.

On Tuesday last Mr. Justice Lnsh opened the commission at Appleby, on the Northern Circuit. He will go the circuit alone untit Liverpool is reached on Saturday next, the 1st prox., when he will be joined by Mr. Justice Horridge.

Mr. Justice Phillimore leaves London to-day (Saturday) for Hertford, on the second part of the South-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on Monday next.

Mr. Justice Grantham and Mr. Justice Scrutton will leave London on Monday next for Newcastle, on the North-Eastern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day.

On Saturday next Mr. Justice Horridge will leave London for Liverpool, on the Northern Circuit, to join Mr. Justice Lush, and will open the commission on the following Monday, the 3rd prox.

The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next at 10.30. Mr. Justice Ridley, Mr. Justice Channell, and Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence are on the rota to attend, but it is understood that Mr. Justice Darling will be the presiding judge.

The June adjourned general session for cases arising on the north and south sides of the Thames will commence on Tuesday next, at the Sessions-house, Newington, at 10.30.

The Midsummer Quarter Sessions for cases arising in the county o Middlesex will commence on Saturday next, at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, at ten o'clock.

Lord De Villiers, Chief Justice of South Africa, has left Cape Town for England.

Mr. Paul Taylor was unable to take his seat in court at the Marlborough-street Police-court last Monday owing to a severe attack of gout. Mr. Plowden presided in court in his place.

Mr. George Walker, of Spilsby, Linos, solicitor, who died on the 1st March 1910, left estate of the gross value of £37,106 18. 2d., of which the net personalty has been sworn at £3746 153. 3d.

Sir Charles Moss, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Ontario, is acting as Lieutenant-Governor of the Province during the absence on leave of Colonel J. M. Gibson.

Mr. Alfred Leighton Sayer, of Yew Tree House, Westfield, Sussex, solicitor, who died on the 6th March, left estate valued at £89,048 gross, with net personalty £60,493.

At the meeting of the International Women's Suffrage Congress on the 15th inst. a resolution was passed, on the proposal of Dr. Shaw (America), expressing sympathy with the arbitration movement. In regard to the suggestion for co-operation with Socialist women's organisations, the congress decided in favour of common action with all women's unions.

The judges (Mr. Justice Ridley and Mr. Justice Bucknill), on the bearing of the North West Ham election petition, having unseated Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, the returned member, there will consequently be another election for that division. It is understood that Mr. E. E. Wild, the well-known member of the South-Eastern Circuit, who contested the seat at the last lection, will again offer himself as a candidate.

Mr. James Ian Macpherson, the new member for Ross and Cromarty, is a barrister. He was called by the Middle Temple in 1906 and goes the Eastern Circuit. He is a native of Inverness-shire, and was educated at Edinburgh University. He had previously contested Wigtownshire and East Renfrewshire, and is one of the ablest speakers among the Young Liberals.

The summer meeting of the London Solicitors' Golfiing Society was held on the links of the Manor Club on the 17th inst. Mr. Gibson's Cup for the best net soore for eighteen holes was won by Mr. Arthur J. Lamb, with 83-10-73. Mr. Haslam's prize for players with handicaps of between 11 and 18 was won by Mr. J. B. Purchase, with 88-12-76. The prize for the best nine holes was won by Mr. C. J. Fox, with 40-3)=36}.

The Treasurer (Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C.) and the Masters of the Bench of Gray's inn entertained the following guests at dinner on the 15th inst., on the occasion of the Grand Day of Trinity Term: Lord Barnard, Lord Strathcona, Mr. Justice Parker, the Speaker of the Union Parliament of South Africa (the Hon. J. T. Molteno, K.C.), the Bâtonnier of the Bar of the Court of Appeal of Paris (M. Busson Billault), Sir John Quick, Sir James Dewar, the Principal of London University (Dr. H. A. Miers), the President of the Law Society (Mr. H. J. Johnson), the President of the Royal College of Surgeons (Mr. Henry T. Butlin). the Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge (Mr. W. Aldis Wright), Mr. S. O. Buckmaster, K ̊C., Mr. D. Stewart-Smith, K.C., and Mr. John Murray. The Benchers present in addition to the Treasurer were: Mr. Henry Griffith, Sir Arthur Collins, K.C., Mr. C. A. Russell, K.C., Mr. Justice Lush, Mr. T. Terrell, K.C., Mr. W. J. R. Pochin, Mr. Arthur Gill, Mr. Vesey Knox, K.C., Mr. W. P. Byrne, C.B., Mr. J. W. McCarthy, Mr. Montagu Sharpe, Mr. George Rhodes, K.C., with the Preacher (the Rev. R. J. Fletcher, D.D).

The death of Mr. Hyacinth Plunkett, K.C., the Father of the Irish Bar, has raised the question as to his successor in that honourable position. The Father of the Bar has generally come to be regarded not as the member of the Bar whose call to the Outer Bar is of a date earlier than other living barristers, but as the member of the Bar who is still actively practising at his Profession and is senior to all others so engaged in respect to his call to the Outer Bar. Mr. Plunkett, who was recognised as Father of the Bar, at which he practised till the last, was junior by seven years in his call to the Outer Bar to Mr. William Irvine, K.Č., who was called to the Bar in 1846, but has long since retired from practice. It seems that Mr. Stephen Ronan, K.C., the King's Advocate-General in Ireland, who was called to the Outer Bar in that country in Michaelmas_Term 1870 and is in leading practice both on the Common Law and Equity sides, is now the Father of the Irish Bar. Mr. Ronan has broken the record in being the first Father of the Irish Bar who is a King's Counsel not only in Ireland, but in England. He has been a member of the Inner Bar in Ireland since 1889. He was called to the English Bar in 1888 at the Inner Temple, and took silk in this country in 1909, He has appeared in the English courts, both in stuff and in silk, in cases in which his knowledge of the laws affecting the registry of title in Ireland has rendered his advocacy. from his exceptional knowledge and experience in these subjects, of very special value. Mr. Ronan bas, strange to say, appeared in silk in the Royal Courts of Justice in this country twenty years before he was called to the Inner Bar in England. He was in 1888-9 one of the counsel for the Times before the Parnell Commission. He came back to Dublin to be called within the Bar in 1889, and on his appearance before the commission in silk-the members of the English and the Irish Bars having similar status in respect to their calls before that tribunal -was warmly congratulated by its members.

The greater portion of the quaint little volume of a few more than 100 pages is occupied with hints as to practice.

In 1665 was published Manley's translation of Grotius, De Rebus Belgicis, and in 1669 his pamphlet written against Sir Thomas Culpepper's views on usury, followed in the next year by a continuation of Trotman's abridgment of Coke's Reports.

The library of the Honourable Society of Gray's-inn possesses a volume by Manley which is not in the British Museum. It contains

a collection of forms under the title "The Clerk's Guide, Leading into Three Parts-viz: (1) Of Indentures, Leases, &c. (2) Letters of Attorney, Warrants of Attorney, Mortgages, Licences, Charter Parties, &c. (3) Bills, Answers, Replications, Rejoynders in Chancery, &c., under which are comprehended the most usual forms of Clerkship. To which is added, a Fourth Part of Fines, Recoveries, Statutes, Recognisances, Judgments, &c., Distresses, and Replevins. Illustrated with Cases, and the Statutes Relating to the same." In the same year, 1672, Manley completed a new edition of Cowell's "Interpreter, containing the genuine Significations of such obscure words and terms used either in the Common or Statute Lawes of this Realm." It is clear, therefore, that, although negligent as a librarian, he had acquired some power of application as a legal writer.

On the 28th Sept. 1672 Charles II. addressed to Sir Francis North, Solicitor-General, Treasurer of the Middle Temple, and the rest of the Masters of the Bench a letter respecting "our well beloved subject Thomas Manley to the intent he may be the more encouraged and enabled to prosecute the effect and purpose of his learning: we have thought fit by these our letters to require you that immediately upon sight hereof you cause the said Thomas Manley to be admitted to the degree of a Barrister and qualify him to practice as a Councellor at law without the ceremonys and formality thereto accustomed. We will not doubt of y' ready compliance with our pleasure in this behalfe, which we shall take in very good part. And 80 we bid you farewell." Accordingly on the following 24th Jan. "Mr. T. Manley is called to the degree of the Utter Bar ex gratia, paying his arrears.' The effect and purport of this letter appears to be entirely misunderstood in the reissue of the Dictionary of National Biography, where it is stated that he was made a King's Counsel.

"

Manley contributed to Wentworth's Office and Duty of an Executor. published in 1676, an appendix "Wherein are contained the Natures of Testaments, Executors, Legataries general, and divers other material things relating to the same; Briefly method yzed for the use of all Persons concerned," and to him is also ascribed "a discourse shewing that the exportation of Wooll is destructive to this kingdom," published in the next year. If the ascription of the authorship of the latter is correct, the publication was posthumour, as on the 24th Nov. 1676 the Parliament of the Middle Temple made an order: "T. Manley's widow shall have £5 given her." The statement added in the reissue of the Dictionary of National Biography that he died in 1690 must apply to another Thomas Manley, and not to the one who was Keeper of the Library of the Middle Temple.

LAW LIBRARY.

C. E. A. B.

Legislature and Judiciary. By the Right Hon. Lord SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, LL.D., K.C. University of London Press. THIS is a reprint of his Lordship's address when opening a course of Jurisprudence last November at University College, when Viscount (then Mr.) Haldane was in the chair and delivered a Rotable speech which, unfortunately, was not recorded. There are many who will be glad to have a copy of this learned and interesting address.

Questions and Answers on Civil Procedure and Evidence. By J. A. SHEARWOOD, Barrister-at-law. Butterworth. THE aim of this little work is to show the trend of examination questions on these subjects so as to give students some guide as to what needs most attention. Questions are selected from papers set in the various law examinations during the last ten years and are grouped under appropriate headings.

NEW EDITIONS.

No large treatise has achieved a greater success of late years than Palmer's Company Law (Stevens and Sons), which now enters on its eighth edition. First published in 1898, it is now known and valued, like the author's Company Precedents, not only throughout Great Britain, but also in America and the colonies. The great feature of the book is the careful reference to decisions in order to show clearly how the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908 has been interpreted by the courts and its provisions supplemented by the rules of law and equity. The present edition incorporates the latest cases and so brings the work fully up to date. Mr. Edward Manson has assisted in its preparation.

Mr. H. Clemson's handbook on Methods and Machinery of Business (Butterworth) has been revised in the second edition in accordance with amendments of the Acts relating to stamp duties. In a new chapter on Consols the author reviews the causes of fluctuation and the suggestions recently made for raising the price.

Messrs. Mead and Bodkin have prepared a third edition of their little handbook on The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (Butterworth) embodying recent decisions of statute law. They have been assisted in the work of revision by Mr. H. D Roome:

As a standard text-book, Best on Evidence (Sweet and Maxwell) has occupied since it first appeared in 1849 an eminent position which Mr. Sidney L. Phipson's eleventh edition worthily maintains. The extensive changes brought about by recent legislation have been duly incorporated, and cases and statutes to March last are included. In the compilation of a very complete Digest of the Canadian Law of Evidence Mr. Phipson has been assisted by Mr. E. C. Robinson, M.A., LL.B., and by his clerk, Mr. D. K. O. Nicol, in preparing the tables of cases and statutes and revising proofs. We are glad to note that the index has been enlarged.

A Dictionary of Banking: a Concise Encyclopædia of Banking Law and Practice, by William Thomson, bank inspector (Sir Isaac Pitman and Son Limited), comprises in a single volume a large amount of information which the inquirer has hitherto been obliged to seek in several different works, and no doubt it will take its place as one of the most useful books of reference for the student, as well as for those who have more practical experience. It emanates from a gentleman who is thoroughly acquainted with the subject, and, with few exceptions, may be relied on as being accurate in theory and practice. No doubt a future edition will afford the opportunity for revision in one or two instances. With all deference to the author, we cannot agree that in practical banking the phrase Sans compte de retour is adequately explained. On the preceding page we find the vexed question of "safe dustody" dealt with, and venture to think that the author might have made more pointed reference to the dieinclination of many bankers to acknowledge responsibility for "safe custody in relation to securities held on behalf of their clients. The term is often used in a rough-and-ready manner to distinguish between securities deposited with bankers as a matter of convenience from those pledged against advances, but the student of banking, to whom this book largely appeals, must be prepared to find bankers declining to accept this domestic use of the phrase as indicating their attitude to securities left in their charge. The book is carefully compiled, and certainly supplies a means of immediate reference on most points likely to occur in the practical working of a bank. As such it is well worth its place in the bank parlour. Two trifling typographical errors are Centisimi, on p. 106, and Herbert Hart," on p. 175.

"

The American Law Review for May-June contains: Chief Justice White, by Richard Henry Jesee; Four Uniform Commercial Acts, by George Whitelock; D lays and Reversals on Technical Grounds in Civil and Criminal Trials, by E. J. McDermott; When does a Case "arise" under Federal Laws? by Charles A. Willard; and the Constitutionality of the Federal Parole Law, by A. K. McNamara.

The Green Bag for June contains articles on: The Standard Oil Decision, by the Editor; Effective Government, by Hon. George W. Wickersham; the Trial of Leisler for High Treason, by Arthur Wakeling; the Act Codifying the Laws Relating to the Federal Judiciary; the Commission on Uniform State Laws; and Ancient Criminal Punishment in Korea, by Maurice E. Allen.

The Harvard Law Review for June contains: The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence-I. Schools of Jurisprudence and Methods of Jurisprudence, by Roscoe Pound; Unrecorded Conditional Sales in Bankruptcy, by Samuel Williston; State Control of Public Utilities; and the Source of Authority to Engage in Interstate Commerce, by Frederick H. Cooke.