« EelmineJätka »
A body was discovered in the Grand Canal at Dublin on Saturday last which was afterwards identified as that of Mr. William Albert Fitz Henry, who was called to the Irish Bar in 1902.
Mr. Henry Philip Mann, for fifty-two years a solicitor in practice at Chatham, and for twenty years town clerk of the borough, took leave of the corporation on the 14th inst. on his retirement from office. Only three of the twenty-four members who beionged to that body when he received the appointment now remain. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded Mr. Mann, and he received a pressing invitation to become mayor for the ensuing year. This honour, however, be declined. The new town clerk is Mr. Mann's assistant, Mr. J. W. Halloran.
Judge Rentoul was seized with illness in the City of London Court on Tuesday morning. Soon after he had taken his seat on the Bench he fell back in his chair. The usher went at once to his assistance, followed by the registrar and members of the Bar, but before they Bould reach him he had fallen over on his right side. A hospital nurse who was in court waiting to give evidence rendered first aid, and after this Judge Rentoul was carried to his room. Dr. Collingridge, the City medical officer, was summoned. Within half an hour Judge Rentoul had recovered sufficiently to be removed to his home. We are glad to state, however, that he was able to take his seat on the Bench on Wednesday, and was apparently quite well again.
The London Gazette of Tuesday contains a notice that under the provisions of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910 it is incumbent upon every person whose statutory income for the financial year ended the 5 h April 1911 exceeded £5000 to give notice thereof to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax before the 30th Sept. Every individual, therefore, who has not already given such notice, or who has not received a form of return for the year 1911-12 from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, should before that date communicate in writing with their clerk, at 49, Wellington-street, Strand, London, W.C., from whom the form of return may be obtained.
The green lawn situated upon the Clement's-inn extremity of the Law Courts is, for perhaps two years, to be occupied by a wood and iron building which will shortly be erected to accommodate the increasing business of the Public Trustee's department. Plans are already in hand for the new offices of the Public Trustee in Sardiniastreet, but so great is the expansion of the department that accom. modation is already needed to supplement that offered by the sixty-two rooms now at its disposal in the premises at Clement's-inn. From five men the staff of the Public Trustee's office has grown in four years to 205.-Times.
The justices of Birmingham and Aston met last week at the Victoria Courts to confer upon the new judicial and administrative system necessitated by the extension of the city. The approach of the new order of things was signalised by the resignation of Mr. William Barradale, for over thirty years justices' clerk in Birmingham. Mr. C. A. Carter, who has acted as Mr. Barradale's chief lieutenant for a number of years, was appointed to the vacant chiefship. The Aston magistrates are to be added to the city Bench, but about fifty magistrates who had formed suburban Benches in other added areas are excluded by the Act. The justices made various appointments to the magistrates' olerk's staff. The appointments have to be submitted to the city council by way of recommendation.
Mr. W. J. H. Graham, revising barrister, gave his decision at Brampton, near Carlisle, on Tuesday in a test case argued before him by the Liberal and Conservative agents for North Cumberland and North Westmorland as to whether the shooting rights of sporting tenants over land could carry a Parliamentary vote. He said that he had come to the conclusion that sporting rights were heredita. ments capable of being separately dealt with and let, and not mere easements. A shooting tenant was getting just as much out of the land as a farmer who took his hay and corn. The concurrent right
to shoot rabbits created by the Ground Game Act made no difference to a sporting tenancy, and it was unnecessary for franchise purposes for a sporting tenant to have a legal document. He therefore decided that sporting rights carried the Parliamentary vote, but he regretted that there was no High Court judgment on that point.
One passage in Lord Rosebery's rectorial address at St. Andrews is not without interest to readers of the LAW TIMES. Referring to the age of darkness, when the little glow-worm of a university first displayed its modest light, the Lord Rector said: "Nothing could be more unpromising. I ask you to remember this, that our University of St. Andrews-for I belong to it for the moment, and am proud to belong to it-is all that remains of the Scotland of that time, with the possible exception of the Convention of the Royal Burghs." It may be recalled that the Convention was fully dealt with in an article in the LAW TIMES of the 8th July last, p. 219. Another passage equally interesting to the student of law was the following: "It is calculated that not one of the nobility could sign his name before 1370, forty years before our foundation. Two centuries after our foundation, Patrick, Earl of Orkney, the virtual king of those islands, a noble of Royal lineage, was so ignorant that, being scarcely able to repeat the Lord's Prayer, his execution was postponed for a few days so that he might receive a little instruction before he left this life."
The University of Lausanne, on the borders of Lake Leman, possesses a unique chair in the Faculty of Law. It is known as the chaire de police scientifique, and the professor is Dr. Reiss. His office is to instruct magistrates in their duties and to give lectures to the police. In fact, he has reduced the subject to a science, and attention is directed to his work by a portly volume which he has recently published under the title of Manuel de Police Scientifique. M. Lépine,
the Prefect of Police in Paris, has written the preface, in which he summarises with precision the work of Dr. Reiss. The author, be says, has undertaken the task of writing what Balzac would have called the psychologie du malfaiteur. To study the peculiar habits, the antecedents, the life by day and by night, the tastes and predilections of this dangerous anthropoid, such is the aim of Dr. Reies. In effect, one learns throughout the first volume that the Lausanne professor has done for criminals what Fabre in the Vie des Insectes did for the scarabée sacré, with the same patience and, if one may say so, with the same love, and, in the view of M. Lépine, the work altogether is as interesting as a romance, and as rigorous as a scientific treatise. All those who are engaged in seeking after the guilty, and ridding the streets of a gens extrêmement malins have to learn a thousand and one things as heteroclite as necessary So Dr. Reiss in his lectures and in his book shows how to identify a recidivist, and how to make a good description of the place of the crime; to note as to the marks tending to show whether there has been any struggle. By studying how shoes are made, the police should be able to judge whether there are any means of knowing from footprints what make of boot the culprit was wearing at the time of the crime. The professor deals with the slang current in criminal classes, and the cabalistic signs by which these offenders communicate with each other. These are few of the points treated by Dr Reiss,
Spencer on Municiral Origins. Constable and Co. Limited, 10. Orange-street, W.C. Price 10s. 6d. net.
Wicker on Neutralization. Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, Amen-corner, E.C. Prices: paper covers 43. net; cloth 5. net.
THE FRENCH LAW OF 1907 WITH REGARD TO
ART. 3 of the French Finance Act of the 30th Jan. 1907 sets out the formalities to be complied with by foreign companies issuing their securities in the French financial market.
Prior to 1907 the formalities to be complied with by foreign companies issuing securities in the French financial market were not sufficient to prevent the public from being deceived. Purchasers had no means of verifying the truth of the statements made by the vendors in their prospectuses or advertisements, and numerous persons were ruined through having been too confident in the success of undertakings presenting no security whatever.
It was necessary to check these financial scandals; prosecutions against the vendors were generally useless, for the reason that they did not disclose their names, or acted through "men of straw who could not possibly recoup the losses incurred by the shareholders. M Chastenet, in 1904, was the first member of the French Parliament to propose a special system of publicity to put an end to these scandals. In 1906 the Government saw the urgent necessity of dealing with this question. M. Caillaux, the French Minister of Finance, spoke as follows: " At the present time numerous securities are sold on our Stock Exchange which have no value at all. The aim of art. 3 of the present Bill is to compel French as well as foreign companies with limited liability to publish their prospectuses and documents in the Journal Officiel, and you have to enact that no securities shall be put on sale in the French market unless such publication shall have taken place. Our duty is to fix certain liabilities upon a certain ciass of financiers whose sole practice is to sell fictitious securities.
No difficulty was raised in the Chambre des Députés and the Bill passed without discussion. Certain modifications of detail only were added to the initial proposition.
It is interesting to carefully examine this art. 3, for it regulates one of the most important points concerning foreign companies, and its non-observance gives rise to heavy penalties. We will discuss: (1) The facts which give rise to an officia publicity; (2) the publicity to be made; (3) the persons compelled by law to make the same; and (4) the penalties for the non-fulfilment of the legal requirements.
I.-FACTS GIVING RISE TO AN OFFICIAL PUBLICITY. The first paragraph of art. 3 runs as follows: The issue, the offering for sale, the selling, and the introduction upon the market of shares, debentures, or securities of any kind shall be subjected to the following formalities prior to any advertisemente." The provisions of the law therefore apply when the issue, the offering for sale, the selling, and the introduction take place in France and the same are made public. The issue consists of seeking for subscribers for any kind of securities. By this term is meant preference shares, ordinary shares, and deferred shares as well as debentures. Consequently the fact of inducing the public to take shares in a company comes within this category as soon as any prospectuses, notices, circulars, and advertisements are published, The offering for sale is the fact
of exposing in a bank or in an office securities with intent to effect a sale thereof. The intention to sell is necessary, and the law does not apply if the person exposing does not intend to carry out a sale, but uses them to attract attention alone. The selling or mise en vente include all descriptions of sales, whether on the Stock Exchange or otherwise. This interpretation is based upon the speech of M. Caillaux: "The aim of this article 3 is to protect small investors"; therefore all kinds of sales must be controlled.
By introduction" is understood the introduction into any places in which shares, debentures, or other securities are negotiated. Such acts must take place in France. As soon as any of the preceding acts take place in that country, a certain official publicity must be made in the form explained hereafter.
Although I have attempted to explain the meaning of the terms issue, offering for sale, selling, and introduction, some points connected with them should be rendered clearer. For instance, an English company desires to sell a certain number of shares in France and invites French subscribers to purchase. Although no sale has yet taken place nor securities been introduced nor issue made, the mere fact of inviting French investors to subscribe for shares is considered by law as an offering in sale. Similarly, if a banker in Paris has agreed to receive applications for shares issued in England by an English company, this comes within the meaning of art. 3, which applies as soon as his clients are solicited by him.
Such facts must be rendered public. To solicit subscriptions in any way is sufficient as regards the application of the law. The phrase prior to any advertisements" used in art. 3 must be interpreted in a wide sense. "advertisements" includes The word posters, prospectuses, and circulars, as well as measures of any kind tending to attract the attention of purchasers. On the contrary, when nothing is done to invite subscriptions the law does not apply. Persons purchasing shares without being invited to subscribe cannot complain of having been deceived. An English company is brought out in Paris. The number of the members is twelve. They agree to take all the shares without inviting the public to join; in this case no publicity is necessary.
II. PUBLICITY NECESSARY TO BE CARRIED OUT. The publicity required by art. 3 may be divided into four headings (1) A special notice to be published in the Journal Officiel; (a) (2) the memorandum and articles of association to be published in the same journal; (3) certain statements to be reproduced upon posters, prospectuses, circulars, &o.; (4) certain statements to be reproduced in advertisements published in newspapers.
Art. 3 enacts: "Prior to any advertisements appearing, the parties issuing, offering for sale, or the sellers and introducers must insert in the Bulletin Annexe du Journal Officiel a notice.
In conclusion, the only publication requisite to be made is a notice. M. Caillaux asserted I lay stress upon this point to avoid errors. that "the aim of this article 3 is to compel French as well as foreign This companies to publish all their prospectuses and documents." statement is not absolutely correct, for the law does not require the ineertion in the Journal Officiel of the prospectuses and circulars. The necessary details which must be set out in the notice are: (1) The name of the company; (2) the nationality thereof-i.e, the legislation which governs the undertaking; (3) the registered office; (1) the objects and powers of the company; (5) its duration; (6) the amount of its capital, the quotation of each category of shares, and the capital not fully paid up. The amount of the capital signifies the amount thereof at the date of the insertion. Accordingly it is necessary to set out the increases or the reductions which may have taken place since the company was registered. It must be remarked that founders' shares must not be included in the capital of the company, for this category of shares is not considered Howby the French courts as forming a part of the capital. ever, it will be seen later on that such shares have to be mentioned separately in the said notice (see No. 9): (7) The latest balancesheet, duly certified, or a statement that none has yet been drawn up. (8) The amount of debentures already issued in France or in any other country, with the enumeration of the charges or mortgages forming the security to the lenders.
The enumeration of the securities must be sufficiently clear to enable the public to determine their exact importance. As M. Gourju stated in the Senate, if securities have been lodged in a bank to serve as a security for debenture-holders, the nature of the same must be well defined. Furthermore, such statement must appear in the notice both in the case of an issue of shares or in the case of an issue of debentures. (9) Shares issued as fully paid up in return for services-ie, the advantages agreed to in favour of promoters, directors, or any other persons. (100) The rules relating to the calling of general meetings. (11) The parties issuing, offering for sale, selling, or introducing are bound to affix their signatures to the notice together with their addresses.
The above persons must be domiciled in France, and are liable in respect of any untrue statements which the notice may contain.
the same series of securities. Art. 3 is conclusive upon this point
A further notice must be inserted when an issue offering for sale, sale, or introduction of a new category of securities takes place in France. New securities mean those belonging to another series. For instance, a foreign company may have already issued 20,000 shares of £1 each in France and a notice may have been published pursuant to art. 3 of the Law of 1907. Such introduction may have taken place at two different periods, the first in Jan. 1908 and subsequently in Jan. 1909. No notice need be published in Jan. 1909, the shares belonging to the same series and the first notice extending to the whole issue of the said 20,000 shares.
Later on the same company may be desirous of issuing 10,000 new shares of £1 each in France. A new notice must be published in reference thereto. It may be objected that the obligation to publish a new notice is useless as all the necessary details were included in the first one. This objection cannot be considered as being serious, for since the insertion of the last notice the articles of association may have been modified and debentures issued, and the public is greatly interested in ascertaining these facts.
In the case of a new issue of securities, is it necessary for the company to reprodu.e all the details contained in the first notice? Such a requirement would occasion, in that event, considerable expense. For this reason the law enacts that if a foreign company has already issued securities in France, and consequently has already published a notice, it is not compelled to republish the same in extenso.
It will be sufficient to refer to the Bulletin du Journal Officiel which contained the previous insertion. However, should modifications have been introduced into the articles of association, or if the capital has been changed, or debentures issued, &c., such modifications must be rendered public by insertion in the new notice.
Memorandum and Articles of Association.
In addition to the notice, art. 3 provides that "any foreign company which proceeds to a public issue in France or offers for sale or sells or introduces shares, debentures, or securities of any description must publish its memorandum and articles of association in full in the French language in the same Bulletin Annexe au Journal Officiel prior to selling any of the securities appertaining thereto." Particulars to be included upon Posters and in Prospectuses, Circulars, &c.
All posters, prospectuses, and circulars must reproduce all the details contained in the notice, and must contain a statement that the said notice has been inserted in the Bulletin Annexe au Journal Officiel, with a reference to the number in which it appeared."
Posters are advertisements affixed in public as well as in private places inviting the public to subscribe.
Prospectuses are printed papers distributed to the public with the same object.
Circulars signify letters sent by post or otherwise and offering for subscription or sale other securities. A letter sent to a person who is already a shareholder or a debenture-holder of the issuing company, setting out the advantages of subscribing for fresh shares or advancing money secured by debentures, is considered by the law as a circular. It must be borne in mind that the law applies only to publications made with the object of inviting purchasers or subscriptions from the public. Publications taking place with other objects need not contain such special statements.
Details to be reproduced in Advertisements published in Newspapers.
All advertisements in newspapers must reproduce an extract of the details contained in the notice, and must contain a statement that the said notice has been inserted in the Bulletin Annexe au Journal Officiel, with a reference to the number in which it appeared." Consequently a great difference exists between advertisements and In the first, it is only necessary to posters, prospectuses, or circulars. insert an extract of the notice "; in the second, an extract is not sufficient, and the entire notice must be reproduced.
But what parts of the notice must be selected for insertion in such "extract"? The law does not explain this point. It is obvious that the "extract" will contain all indications which may interest the public-for instance, the name of the company, the amount of its capital, the number of securities to be issued, &c.
III. PERSONS REQUIRED BY LAW TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE. The persons who are bound by law to publish the notice in the Bulletin Annexe du Journal Officiel are those who issue, expose, sell, or introduce foreign securities into France; and they are liable to penalties should such insertion not appear at the proper date—that is as set out in art. 3 (see supra.) to say, prior to any "publicity A foreign A French company may issue its securities itself. company always requires the intervention of a French banker to issue, introduce, or sell its securities, for the following reasons: Art. 3 enacts that the person publishing the notice must be domiciled in France (see supra). The nationality of a foreign company depending upon its domicil, such an enterprise is accordingly always considered to be domiciled in a country other than France. Consequently a foreign company which is legally domiciled in a foreign country cannot itself take the necessary steps for the issue or the introduction
of its securities in France; otherwise the law would not be complied with.
In conclusion, a foreign company is always obliged to appoint a French banker, who inserts the notice and signs the same under his own responsibility.
"Non compliance with the above regulations will be notified by the agents of the Government and will incur a penalty of a fine of from 10,000 to 20,000 francs."
This penalty is incurred should any details required to be inserted in the notice be omitted; if, for instance, the balance sheet is not fully reproduced or the name and address of the introducer or seller are not indicated. Similarly, the fine becomes payable if the details inserted in the notice are not reproduced in the posters or prospectuses, and if no reference to the number of the Bulletin be given.
Is a penalty due in respect of each omission and infringement or in respect of the entire offer ce ?
The law upon this point is clear and cannot give rise to any diecussion. The penalty is incurred in respect of each omission in the notice and for each non-observance of the legal requirements.
players had been contributing to the prizes I gather that the decision would have been the other way. In the present case, therefore, as the players contributed to the prizes it constituted gaming. Reliance, however, was placed on the concluding words of the section. In Jenks v. Turpin, Hawkins, J. reviewed at length the several Acts relating to gaming, and on pp 523-4 he proceeds to consider what are unlawful games within the statutes. He states that there are two classes-those actually forbidden by name and those not prohibited or declared to be altogether illegal, but styled unlawful by the Legislature because the keeping of houses for playing them and the playing them therein by anybody was declared unlawful; that since the Gaming Act of 1845 the only games made unlawful by the statute of Henry VIII. are games of dice and cards; that all such games, if they are games of chance or games of chance and skill combined (which cannot be called games of mere skill), are unlawful games under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38; that the language of the first section of the Act of 1845 referring to the statute of Henry VIII and repeating only so much of it as applies to games of skill is a strong indication of the intention of the Legislature that all the other games mentioned in the statute of Henry VIII. were to continue to be treated as unlawful if played in a house kept for playing at them; and he concludes that the unlawful games are ace of hearts, Pharaoh, basset hazard, roulette, every game of dice except backgammon, and every game of cards which is not a game of mere skill, and he is inclined to add any other game of mere chance. It is true that the Act with which that case was immediately concerned was not the Gaming Act of 1845, and the judge was not dealing at all with sect. 18. But he founds bis conclusion very largely on the language of the first section to that Act and upon the intention of the Legislature indicated thereby, and, in my opinion, it must be taken that a lawful game in sect. 18 was intended to mean not any game which is not prohibited by statute or at common law, but a game other than those actually prohibited or treated or styled as unlawful in the sense explained by Hawkins, J., and therefore, the whist drive being a game of cards and not a game of mere skill, and being consequently unlawful in that sense, the present case is not within the saving words of the section. I observe that Mr. Stutfield in his book (pp. 152-3) takes the same view as to the meaning of the words "lawful game Art. 463 of "in the section. Apart from the authority of Jenks v. Turpin, and on general consideratione. I think I should have held that transactions or proceedings of this kind were not within the meaning which ought fairly to be attributed to the words of exception. The result, in my opinion, is that although there is nothing illegal in a person playing (except at certain places) in a whist drive for prizes to which he and other players subscribe or contribute, a court of law will not entertain a civil action brought by a winner to recover a prize if it be withheld cr damages for breach of contract in withholding it.
For instance, if the objects of the company and the amount of debentures already issued in a foreign country do not appear in the notice a double penalty is incurred. On the other hand, shouli securities have been issued prior to the publication of a notice, each of the introducers or sellers is liable. Similarly, a person issuing securities upon several occasions prior to the publication of the notice must pay a penalty in respect of each particular issue.
In the case of prospectuses, posters, and advertisements, which must produce either the notice in full or an extract with a reference to the Bulletin du Journal Officiel in which the said notice or extract has appeared, a penalty is incurred in respect of each category of documents which does not contain the necessary details; ie., two penalties if the posters and prospectuses contain some omissionsone as regards the prospectuste and one as regards the posters.
As it has been previonely stated, the amount of the penalty is from 10,000 francs to 20,000 francs. It appears to be very heavy, but as a matter of fact it may be reduced considerably. In the law of 1907 it is enacted that: "
the Penal Code shall apply to the penalties contained in paragraph.
According to art. 3, therefore, the judge has the power to reduce the penalties to the minimum of 1 franc, if he considers the parties are entitled to such a reduction.
Avocat à la Cour d'Appel de Paris, and of
NORTON v. IDEAL WHIST COMPANY.
IN the Bloomsbury County Court of Middlesex in August last the following judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Bray :
His HONOUR.-This action was brought to recover £10 under the following circumstances: The defendants advertised in the Evening News of the 29th April as follows: "A great and select drive to night at 8.15, £10 coupon top score, and twelve other beautiful prizes. The Ideal, 374, Oxford-street, corner James-street, opposite Bond street Tube. Grand drive every evening. Charming rooms.' Any person might play on payment to the defendants of ls. 6d. The plaintiff paid the defendants 1s. 6d., played, and won the £10 coupon. The defendants sent him an order upon a particular shop; the plaintiff contended that he was entitled to an order upon any shop selected by him. The defendants disputing his claim, this action was brought. The only defence raised at the trial was that it was within the Gaming Acts. It is not necessary to describe in detail the It procedure of a whist drive. is sufficient to say that the player plays successively against different players, and that it is mainly a matter of chance with whom he plays and against whom he plays. Sect. 18 of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109 enacts that "all contracts or agreements by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void, and that no suit shall be brought for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made pro
vided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution or agreement to subscribe or contribute for or toward any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise." There are two cases, and two cases only, to which I think it necessary to refer-Lockwood v. Cooper (89 L. T. Rep 306; (1903) 2 K. B. 428) and Jenks v. Turpin (50 L. T. Rep. 808; 13 Q. B. Div. 505). In Lockwood v. Cooper a number of persons played in a whist drive at an hotel, in a room hired for the purpose. They played for prizes which were not subscribed for by the players, but were given by third persons. It was held that it was not gaming within the Licensing Act of 1872, because to constitute gaming the game played must be one which involves the element of wagering; each player must have a chance of losing as well as winning; if the
Clerkenwell, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday
Colchester, Tuesday, at 10
Crewe, Wednesday, at 10
Dereham, Tuesday, at 10
Felixstowe, Monday, at 11.15
Folkestone, Tuesday, at 10
Great Grimsby, Wednesday (R.
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at 10; Saturday, at 9.30 Leighton Buzzard, Thursday, at 10 Lincoln, Thursday (R. By), at 3 Liverpool, Monday (By at Thursday, and Friday (B., A., and W.C.), at 10
Thursday, and Friday, at 10
Marylebone, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Melton Mowbray, Friday, at 10
New Romney, Monday, at 12
Oldham, Wednesday, at 9.30
Pershore, Thursday, at 10
St. Albans, Monday, at 10
Sheerness, Thursday, at 10
Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10.30
Southport, Tuesday, at 10
Whitchurch, Saturday, at 10 Wigan, Tuesday (R. By at 11), at 9
Winchcomb, Wednesday Windsor, Thursday, at 10 Winsford. Tuesday, at 2 Wood Green, Monday, at 10.30 Wymondham, Friday, at 10 Other sittings are specialy fixed if necessary
SANITARY ASSURANCE.-Before renting or purchasing a house it is advisable to obtain an independent report on the condition of the Drains, Sanitary Fittings, and Water Supply. Moderate fees for Sanitary Inspections on application to the Sanitary Engineering Company, 115. Victoria-street, Westminster. 'Phone, Westminster 316. "Sanitation," London.-[ADVT.]
Abingdon, Thursday, Oct. 19
Bedford, Thursday, Oct. 5
Berwick-upon-Tweed, Friday, Oct. 6
Bridgnorth, Wednesday, Oct. 18
Croydon, Tuesday, Oct. 10, at 10
Derby, Thursday, Oct. 19, at 10.30
Doncaster, Thursday, Oct. 5
Dover, Monday, Oct. 2
Dudley, Friday, Oct. 6, at 10.30
Exeter, Tuesday, Oct. 3
Folkestone, Monday, Oct. 2, at 11
Great Yarmouth, Monday, Oct. 9, at 10,30
Grimsby, Tuesday, Oct. 24
Merthyr Tydfil, Wednesday, Oct. 18
Swansea, Friday, Sept. 29
Thetford, Friday, Oct. 28
Warwick, Thursday, Oct. 12
West Ham, Friday, Sept. 29, at 10.30
ST. ANDREWS HONOURS FOR LAWYERS. THE list of honorary degrees in law conferred in connection with the celebration of the five hundredth anniversary of the foundation of the University of St. Andrews-described by the late Lord Selborne as the most ancient seat of learning in a land whose citizens are distinguished in every sphere in which distinction can be gained contains the names of several lawyers. Below we give them, and the achievements following are taken from the official list as presented by the Dean to the Chancellor when the recipients were capped:
The Right Honourable Herbert Henry Asquith, Privy Councillor, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Member of Parliament for East Fife since 1886, barrister-at-law, formerly Scholar and Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, Craven University Scholar in Classics, Home Secretary 1892-5, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1905-8, Rector of the University of Glasgow (1905-8), and of Aberdeen (1908 11).
Georg Frommhold, Geheimer Justiz-Rat, Professor of German Law and Commercial Law in the University of Greifswald, is the author of several important works on German Law, and especially on the Law of Succession and Inheritance. His book on the Influence of Religion on the Laws of the Germans deals with a subject of great importance.
The Right Honourable Sir John Hay Athole Macdonald, P.C.. K. C. B., Lord Justice Clerk and Lord President of the Second Division of the Court of Session since 1888, Fellow of the Royal Society, Member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, Ensign-General of the Royal Company of Archers, Honorary Colonel of the Army Motor Reserve, Vice-President of the Royal United Service Institution and of the National Rifle Association; formerly Sheriff of Ross and Sutherland and of Perthshire, Dean of the Faculty of Advocatee, and Member of Parliament for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews. He bas done much to improve the Criminal Law and Procedure in Scotland, and has carried through legislation with that end in view.
William Harrison Moore, Professor of Jurisprudence, Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne, barrister. Professor Moore was appointed Constitutional Adviser to the Government of Victoria in 1907. He is the author of several legal works and papers, the principal being on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.
James Urquhart, Lord Provost of Dundee, has been associated with the public life of Dundee for sixteen years. He is a man of culture, a poet, a lawyer, and a man of affaire. An alumnus of Edinburgh University, he has been in business in Dundee as a solicitor for more than twenty years. During his public career Mr. Urquhart has been a magistrate for three years, treasurer for two years, and three years ago was unanimously elected Lord Provost of the city.
THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM.
By ROBERT A. EDGAR, of the New York Bar. (From Case and Comment)
THE use of particular places as asylums where those accused of crime could find refuge from the pursuing avenger of blood is very ancient. It arose at a time when stable Governments had not yet been formed and regular judicial machinery established, when the right of private vengeance existed; when the rule was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," when the law was that "whoso shed deth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," when the slayer was pursued by a son or other relative of the elain man, and, if overtaken, summarily killed. It is not strange, therefore, that sentiments of justice, humanity, and religion, prompted men to seek some means to save the offender from indiscriminating vengeance. Pursued by the avenger, the hunted transgressor fled to some shrine, temple, church, or other sanctuary, and there as a refugee and suppliant sought protection. Owing to ite sacred character, it was considered an act of sacrilege and impiety worthy of death to kill him there or to drag him thence. Here he obtained, if not a pardon for his offence and a remission of
his sine, at least an opportunity to have his guilt inquired into, and to have the benefit of mitigating circumstances. Such sanctuaries existed in Egypt, Greece, Palestine, and other Eastern and European countries. By the Levitical law six cities were set aside as cities of refuge. These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them: that everyone that killeth any person unawares may flee thither."
As superstition declined and the administration of justice became more regular, the use of these sanctuaries as asylums ceased. The idea, however, that the fugitive had a right to an asylum did not at once die out, and each country came to be regarded as an asylum for offenders against the laws of other countries.
But as the administration of justice in the different countries improved, as intercourse increased, and ignorance and prejudice regard. ing each other diminished, the notion that the fugitive had a right to refuge and protection disappeared, and in its place was substituted the right to expel or extradite any refugee from another country. An asylum, therefore, is not, strictly speaking, a right of the fugitive, but is a privilege which the country to which he has filed It follows as a necessary consequence can either grant or refuse. from the unrestricted sovereignty which every nation possesses over its own territory.
EXTRADITION FROM TERRITORY OF FOREIGN COUNTRY.
It may be said that, by the great weight of authority, no nation is bound, in the absence of treaty obligation, to deliver up a fugitive offender to the nation whose laws are violated. The Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, in the case of United States v. Rauscher (119 U S. 407; 30 L. ed. 425; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 222), said: "It is only in modern times that the nations of the earth have imposed upon themselves the obligation of delivering up these fugitives from justice to the States where their crimes were committed, for trial and punishment. This has been done generally by treaties made by one independent Government with another. Prior to these treaties and apart from them it may be stated as the general result of the writers upon international law that there was no well-defined obligation on one country to deliver up such fugitives to another, and though such delivery was often made, it was upon the principle of comity, and within the discretion of the Government whose action was invoked; and it has never been recognised as among those obligations of one Government towards another which rest upon established principles of international law."
Similar Views were expressed by Chief Justice Tilghman, of Pennsylvania, in Com ex rel. Short v. Deacon (10 Serg & R 125): "The more deeply the subject is considered the more sensibly shall we feel its difficulties: so that, upon the whole, the safest principle seems to be that no State has an absolute and perfect right to demand of another the delivery of a fugitive criminal, though it has what is called an imperfect right, that is, a right to ask it, as a matter of courtesy, good will, and mutual convenience. But a refusal to grant such request is no just cause of war." Other judicial authorities in this country are to the same effect. The only important exception is that of Chancellor Kent,
The principle has been acted upon by the various American Secretaries of State in their dealings with foreign nations. Thus Mr. Rush, when Secretary of State, in his note to Mr Hyde de Neuville, the 9th April 1817, said: "The laws of nations embrace no provision for the surrender of persons who are fugitives from the offended las of one country to the territory of another. It is only by treaty that such surrender can take place." Similar statements were made by President Jefferson, Mr. Webster, and President Buchanan when Secretaries of State.
But although, in the absence of treaty, one nation is not bound to deliver up fugitives to another, there is no principle of international law to prevent its doing so of its own accord as a matter of comity or courtesy. And this has been done on numerous occasions. Thus Spain surrendered Tweed to the United States in 1876, before the conclusion of an extradition treaty between the two countries, and Morocco surrendered Stensland, the defaulting Chicago banker.
The existence of a treaty which provides for extradition for certain crimes does not deprive either nation of the power and right to exercise its own discretion in cases not coming within the terms of the treaty. The laws of some countries, however, including the United State and Great Britain, give no authority for the surrender of fugitives in the absence of treaty. This country has, on numerous occasions, declined to surrender fugitives, on the ground of lack of power. Thus, Mr. Gresham, when Secretary of State, in a note to the Portuguese Minister on the 5th June 1895, said: " In the absence of a treaty or an Act of Congress authorising it, the President has no authority to cause the arrest and extradition to another country of an alleged criminal found within the jurisdiction of the United States."
Because of its lack of power to reciprocate, the United States has, with a few exceptions, carefully refrained from requesting surrender of criminals from countries with which it has no extradition treaty; and, on the few occasions when it did make the request, was careful to explain that it had no power to grant similar courtesies. Thus, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. Adee, Chargé d'Affaires, the 3rd Nov. 1876, referring to Spain's surrender of Tweed in that year before the conclusion of the extradition treaty between the two countries, said: "The United States has from time to time carefully avoided making requests for the surrender of criminals, for the reason, among others, that it might not be possible to reciprocate on such a matter. The Government of Spain, in its action in this case, has appreciated the peculiarity of the case." In 1896, Mr. Oney,
premising that the Government of the United States could not, in the absence of treaty, surrender a fugitive from justice, and therefore could not promise reciprocity, stated that, upon the requisition of the Governor of Massachusetts, the Department of State would “make the attempt to obtain the surrender of a fugitive criminal from Venezuela as an act of courtesy."
The United States has, however, on several occasions, recovered fugitives from other countries with which no extradition treaties existed, because they had been surrendered as an act of courtesy.
Extradition treaties covering the most important crimes have been negotiated with most of the civilised nations of the earth.
Although there was some doubt about the matter at first, it may now be taken as settled doctrine that the surrender of a fugitive cannot be made by a State, but is a national act, and can only be done by the United States or by its orders. The United States may, however, by treaty or statute, confer such authority upon State officials; and in the extradition treaty with Mexico of the 11th Dec. 1861 a limited authority was conferred upon certain State officials in the border States.
ASYLUM IN LEGATIONS.
In order to secure the independence of ambassadors in the discharge of their functions, the ambassador, his family, and suite are exempt from the operation of local law. This exemption is called extra-territoriality, the ambassador being considered, by a fiction of law, as beyond the territory and jurisdiction of the country to which he is accredited. In order to secure his person from insult and his papers from search, the house in which he lives enjoys great immunity, and is inaccessible to the ordinary officers of justice. This immunity is known as the inviolability of the diplomatic hotel or residence. "If it can be rightly entered at all without the consent of its occupant, it can only be so entered in consequence of an order emanating from the supreme authority of the country in which the Minister resides, and for which it will be held responsible by his Government." It is not strange, therefore, that with the abolition of sanctuaries and cities of refuge, that many persons who were wanted for ordinary or political offences sought refuge in the houses of foreign Ministers. In early times most exaggerated claims ¡were made by ambassadors as to the extent of their privileges and mmunities. In some cities, notably Rome, Madrid, and Venice, these ncluded what is known as the freedom of the quarter (franchise des quartiers) by which not only the Minister's house, but the quarter or ward of the city in which he lived, enjoyed an immunity from local law. In consequence of the gross abuses of this privilege by reason of criminals and scalawags of all kinds resorting thither to the detriment of the good order of the city and State, Pope Innocent XI. announced that thereafter he would not receive any ambassador at Rome who would not relinquish the privilege. All did so with the exception of Louis XIV, King of France, who, when the example of his brethren was pointed out to him as one reason why he should also give up the privilege, replied with his accustomed arrogance that his Crown should never be ruled by the example of others; that God had established it as an example and guide to others, and that he had resolved, so long as he reigned, never to let it be deprived of any of its rights. An armed conflict ensued before the matter was finally compromised. In one instance inviolability was claimed and tacitly allowed for the French Ambassador's coach in which he was transporting some refugees from the legation in Rome to the sea.
Because they had been grossly abused, the e extended privileges were gradually curtailed. One case will be cited to mark the decline. In 1726, the Duke of Ripperda, Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs to Philip V. of Spain, being apprehensive concerning his safety, sought refuge. uninvited, in the house of the British Ambassador, though no charges were then pending against him. With the consent of the Spanish Government he was allowed to remain for a time. But on discovering that he had abstracted important State papers the Government sought advice from the Council of Castile whether he could be seized. The latter replied that it would “operate to the subversion and utter ruin of Sovereigns] if persons who had been intrusted with the finances, the powers and the secrets of the State, were, when guilty of violating the duties of their office, allowed to take shelter under a privilege which had been granted to the house of ambassadors in favour of only ordinary offenders." He was accordingly seized. The English Foreign Minister, in protesting, did so on the ground that, under the circumstances, should have been given for the peaceable surrender of Ripperda, but an opportunity without expressing any opinion as to whether or not the ambassador had a right to protect him. The action of the Spanish authorities on this occasion has met the approval of most writers on international law.
Formerly the right of asylum was granted only in case of common criminals, and not in the case of political offenders. But later the situation was reversed, and asylum is now never granted in case of ordinary criminals, but only in case of political offenders when it is granted at all. As Bynkershock pertinently asked: "Are ambassadors sent to harbour thieves?" It is seldom, if ever, granted except in case of great civil disturbance, Calvo said that "in the midst of civil disturbances" a Minister's dwelling can and ought to offer an assured refuge "to political persons whom danger to life forcee on the moment to take refuge there." But he also lays down the following limitations to inviolability of a Minister's house. "The dwelling of a public Minister is inviolable, in so far as it affects things indispensable to his official service and to the free and regular exercise of his functions; but whenever the conduct or the imprudent attitude of a diplomatic agent puta in peril the peace of the State,
violates or tends to elude the laws of the country, by converting, for example, the legation into a refuge for criminale or into a habitation of conspiracy against the established Government, the privilege of inviolability of domicil disappears, and the offended State is fully warranted in refusing to the dwelling of the agent the benefit of an immunity which reason and justice cease to sustain."
The position which this country has taken on the question of asylum is well illustrated in a letter from Mr. Seward, when Secretary of State, to Mr. Hovey, Minister to Peru, the 25th Feb. 1867, at a time of great political excitement in that country: "I observe that you have taken these positions, viz., that Peru is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Christian nation, and as such should be placed precisely in the position of the United States, France, England, and other Christian countries, and that the doctrine of asylum cannot be properly claimed or enforced in Peru, unless it be in exceptional cases recognised by the universal law of nations; that as soon as a legal charge of crime is made, whether political or not, you hold it to be the duty of the Minister in whose legation an offending party has taken refuge to leave him without interference to the authorities demanding his arrest. Again, that you claim no diplomatic power or right in Peru that your Government does not accord to the representative of Peru at Washington. These positions are altogether approved."
On the 5th Oct. 1875, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Cushing, Minister to Spain, spoke as follows of the practice of revolutionists resorting to the legations for refuge: "The frequency of resort in Spain to the legations for refuge, and the fact mentioned by you that nobody there disputes the claim of asylum, but that it has become, as it were, the common law of the land, may be accounted for by the prevalence of conspiracy as 8 means of changing a Cabinet or a Government,' and the continued tolerance of the usage, is an encouragement of this tendency to conspiracy.
It is an annoyance and embarrassment, probably, to the Ministers whose legations are thus used, but certainly to the Governments of those Ministers, and, as facilitating and encouraging chronic conspiracy and rebellion, it is wrong to the Government and to the people where it is practised-a wrong to the people, even though the Ministry of the time may not remonstrate, looking to the possibility of finding a convenient shelter when their own day of reckoning and of flight may come."
The United States has, however, on several occasions, countenanced the use of its legations as a temporary refuge to persons fleeing from mob violence until order could be established, and in the interregnum between the overturning of one Government and the establishing of another. This has been particularly the case at Hayti, where rebellions and revolutions bad become so common as almost to have become the normal condition of affairs.
Other nations have been very free in granting protection to members of the unsuccessful parties in the numerous revolutions which have occurred in South America. In the United States the supremacy of the local law has been so rigorously maintained that the right of asylum has never existed, though the right has probably been claimed and granted in every other independent country in America. In 1794, Bradford, Attorney-General, rendered an opinion that the house of a foreign Minister could not be made an asylum for a guilty nor, it was apprehended, a prison for an innocent one; and that although the Minister's house be exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of the country, yet, in such case, “recourse would be had to the interposition of the extraordinary powers of the State."
RIGHT OF ASYLUM IN CONSULATES.
In the absence of treaty, consuls have no diplomatic character, and their houses are not entitled to the immunities granted to diplomatic agents. Hence, there is no right of asylum in consulates. Mr. Marcy, when Secretary of State, in instructing Mr. Clay, Minister to Peru, the 24th Jan. 1854, said: "Neither the law of nations nor the stipulations of our treaty with Peru recognises the right of consuls to afford protection to those who bave rendered themselves obnoxious to the authority of the Government under which they dwell."
By treaty, however, consuls have been given considerable judicial and diplomatic powers in certain barbarous and non Christian nations; and the grant of such powers has generally been considered as endowing the consulate with extra-territoriality. By treaty with some Christian nations, consulates have been made inviolable, but with the proviso that they shall not be used as asylums.
ASYLUM ON SHIPS OF WAR,
A man-of-war or other public vessel of a country when on the high seas is under the absolute jurisdiction of the country whose flag it flies. By a fiction of law it is regarded as a detached and floating part of its territory; and even when within the territorial bounds of a friendly country, it is for most purposes exempt from its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the United States, by Chief Justice Marshall, held that a warship of a foreign Sovereign at peace with the United States comi g into its ports is exempt from the jurisdiction of the country. The court held that "the implied licence, therefore, under which such vessel enters a friendly port may reasonably be construed, and, it seems to the court, ought to be construed, as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the Sovereign within whose territory she claims the rights of hospitality" Similar views were expressed by Cushing when Attorney-General. Mr. Justice Story thought that the exemption "stands upon principles of public comity and convenience, and arises from the presumed consent