all repairs out of income. The decision in Re Gray (ubi sup.) contained nothing to compel the court to depart from this view. Where trustees had exercised their discretion boná fide, the court would not interfere. In the present case, the trustees were come to the court, and were unwilling to exercise their discretion. They had surrendered their discretion. The court was thus free to determine how the expenses were to be borne and, in doing so, had to follow the line of cases of which Re Hotchkys; Freke v. Calmady (1886, 55 L. T. Rep. 110; 32 Ch. Div. 248) was an example. The court would hold that the repairs in the present case must be paid for out of income, and the court did not consider that that view in any way went against the decision of Clauson, J. in Re Gray (ubi sup.) [Re Robins; Holland v. Gillam. Ch. Div.: Tomlin, J. June 5 and 6.-Counsel for the trustees as applicants, Nicholson Combe; for the plaintiffs as respondents, Charles Church; for eleven defendants interested in income, H. Norman Daynes; for a defendant interested in capital, Lloyd Williams. Solicitors: Iliffe, Sweet, and Co., for E. R. Williams and Son, Birmingham ; Winter and Co.] Will-Gift of residue to tenant for life and remaindermanDistribution of cash bonuses in a company-Capital or income. By his will made in 1919 a testator gave the residue of his estate to trustees upon trust for his wife for life and then to divide the corpus among his children. The income arising from such estate was to be treated as income. After the testator's death in 1919, and before that of his widow in 1924, certain payments were made by the Anchor Steam Fishing Company in respect of the testator's holding therein to the trustees. Similar payments were made by the Atlas Steam Fishing Company. The Anchor payments were made in respect of the sale at an enhanced price of three of their trawlers, and were said to be not a dividend or bonus but a capital distribution. The payments by the Atlas Company were stated to be the same. This summons was then taken out asking whether these payments were capital or income of the residuary estate. Held, that the capital accounts being kept intact, and the surplus invested in war bonds, and carried to a suspense account, that surplus could have been capitalised by issuing bonus shares: (Bouch v. Sproule, 57 L. T. Rep. 345; 12 App. Cas. 385). This, however, was not done, and it remained available for distribution as dividend. It was, therefore, income and went to the widow as tenant for life. [Re Bates; Mountain v. Bates. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. May 16.-Counsel: De Montmorency; Turnbull; A. Johnston; Howard Wright. Solicitors: Gamlen, Bowerman, and Forward; Williamson, Hill, and Co., for Bates, Mountain, and West, Grimsby; Tarry, Sherlock, and King.] PRACTICE NOTE. Trade mark-Order of Comptroller-General as registrarApplication to court-Practice-Order made a rule of courtCosts of application-Trade Marks Act 1919, s. 10. By an order of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks as registrar, an applicant for registration of a trade mark, who had been deemed, upon the filing of a notice of opposition, to have abandoned the application, was directed to pay the costs of the opponent. Upon non-compliance with the registrar's order an application was made to the court that the order be made a rule of court, and that the applicant be directed to pay also the costs of the present application. Held, that the order should be made a rule of court, and that the applicant on the application to court was entitled to the costs of the application. [Ch. Div. Tomlin, J. June 7.-Counsel: F. E. Bray. Solicitors: Mills, Curry, and Gaskell.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION Revenue-Income tax-Insurance company-Profits of tradeDeductions Investments Railway stocks Loss in value due to substitution of securities-Income Tax Act 1918, Sched. D, case I. The appellant company carried on the business of fire, accident, and general insurance, and in the course of that business had occasion to make large investments, which were varied from time to time. It was admitted that any profit made or loss suffered in the realisation of such investments fell to be included in or deducted from the profits of the appellant company's business for assessment to income tax. At all material times the appellant company's investments included a great variety of stocks of railway companies. Under the Railways Act 1921 the railway companies of Great Britain were formed into four groups, the principal railway companies in each group being amalgamated and the smaller companies being absorbed by the amalgamated concerns, the companies so amalgamated and absorbed being wound up and the holders of stocks receiving in exchange stocks in one of the four amalgamated companies. The stocks in the amalgamated companies received by the appellant company in exchange for the stocks previously held by them had a definite market value at the date of the exchange, at which market value the stocks, on being taken into the appellant company's accounts, showed a loss, which the appellant company claimed as a deduction in ascertaining their assessable profits. The Crown refused to allow the deduction on the grounds that there had been no sale or realisation of investments, but merely a substitution of securities, and that no loss had in fact been realised, the treatment of the stocks in the appellant company's accounts being, in effect, a claim to write down the value of their investments which was not allowable for income-tax purposes. The Special Commissioners held that there had been no realisation of the stocks previously held by the appellant company, and that the deduction claimed was not allowable. The appellant company appealed. Held, that although when an investment was fluctuating in value the fluctuations were not to be taken into account for income-tax purposes, there had been in effect a realisation of the holdings in the companies which had been wound up, and the value of the new investments should therefore be brought into account. The appeal was allowed. [Royal Insurance Company Limited v. Stephen. K. B. Div. Rowlatt, J. June 15.-Counsel: Latter, K.C. and H. P. Glover; Sir Frank Merriman, K.C. (S. G.) and Reginald Hills. Solicitors: Batesons and Co.; Solicitor of Inland Revenue.] : Revenue-Income tax-Pensions-Profits of office or employment -Voluntary allowance paid by company to retired director— Gifts of a personal nature-Not assessable to income taxIncome Tax Act 1918, Sched. E. 66 The respondent, who had for many years been the managing director of a company, retired on the 31st Dec. 1922. It had been the custom of the company to give to members of its staff a voluntary pension or allowance on their retirement. By a resolution of the directors passed on the 11th Jan. 1923, a pension was awarded to the respondent in the following terms: It was unanimously resolved that Mr. T. be paid during his retirement a pension of £5000 per annum, free of income tax, as from the 1st Jan. 1923." In accordance with that resolution payments were made to the respondent until on the 6th Aug. 1925 a resolution was passed by the directors rescinding the resolution of the 11th Jan. 1923 and providing as follows: "It was resolved to give Mr. T. a sum of £5000 to be paid to him as to half thereof forthwith, and as to the remainder in Jan. 1926, and the secretary was instructed to prepare a cheque in favour of Mr. T. for £2500. This sum is not voted to Mr. T. as or because he is a director, but as a personal gift to him." The voluntary pensions or allowances paid by the company had been deducted by it in ascertaining its profits available for division amongst the shareholders, but for income-tax purposes such allowances had not been allowed as deductions in computing the profits. The respondent was assessed to income tax under Sched. E for each of the years 1922-23, 1923-24, 1924-25, and 1925-26, in the amounts of the payments made to him by the company in each year, income tax at the appropriate rate being added to the payments made. He appealed on the ground that the allowances were merely gifts of a personal nature and were not assessable to income tax. The Special Commissioners held that the allowances paid to the respondent were gifts of a personal nature only, and were not income assessable to income tax. The Crown appealed. Held, that the allowances paid under both resolutions were nothing but a series of gifts, which were not profits or gains within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, and were not assessable to income tax. The appeal was dismissed. [Beynon v. Thorpe. K. B. Div.: Rowlatt, J. June 13.Counsel: Sir Thomas Inskip, K.C. (A.-G.) and Reginald Hills; Raymond Needham, K.C. and J. S. Scrimgeour. Solicitors: Solicitor of Inland Revenue; Crossman, Block, Matthews, and Crossman.] LAW LIBRARY The Business Tenant, by Mr. Edward S. Cox-Sinclair and Mr. T. Hynes (Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Limited), is another guide to the law as to compensation for goodwill and improvements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. Practical notes are given on the various parts of the Act and we think that certain non-official forms which have been framed by the authors to cover the ordinary steps which may be taken by landlord and tenant under the Act where no application to the tribunal takes place will be found very useful. In an appendix the text of the statute is given, together with the rules both of the Supreme Court and the County Court. Another useful chapter is the time-table of proceedings, which gives the times in respect of claims under the compensation sections of the Act. Part 7 of Vol. 20 of Criminal Appeal Cases, edited by Mr. Herman Cohen, has just been published by Sweet and Maxwell Limited. It contains decisions given by the Court of Criminal Appeal between the 15th March and the 14th May last, and, as the part completes the volume, also an index, table of cases and statutes cited. NEW EDITION The last edition of that invaluable work for all equity lawyers and conveyancers, namely White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity, appeared in 1910-1912. Having regard to the new legislation a new edition, the Ninth, is very welcome, and this has been prepared by Mr. E. P. Hewitt, K.C., and Mr. J. B. Richardson (Sweet and Maxwell Limited). Only one case, namely Agar v. Fairfax, which relates to partition, has been omitted from the present edition, but some cases, as, for example, Countess of Strathmore v. Bowes, have been dealt with very briefly on account of their greatly reduced importance. The whole book has been carefully revised and its bulk materially shortened, but the legislation of the past few years has rendered necessary very considerable alterations in the text. Volume I. covers Administration to Legacies, and volume II. Mortgage to Waste, the cases illustrating principles and the excellent dessertations their application. Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Richardson have done their work exceedingly well, and the present edition is quite up to the high standard of its predecessors. BOOKS RECEIVED Cox-Sinclair and Hynes on the Business Tenant. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Limited, Pitman House, Parker-street, Kingsway, W.C. 2. Price 7s. 6d. net. White and Tudor's Leading Cases in Equity. Ninth Edition by E. P. Hewitt and J. B. Richardson. Two vols. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2 and 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price £4 10s. net. Criminal Appeal Cases. Vol. 20, part 7. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2 and 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price 7s. 6d. net. Circumstantial Evidence. Novel by Andrew Stewart. John Lane, The Bodley Head Limited, Vigo-street, W. Price 7s. 6d. net. LEGISLATION The Prayer-book Measure THE rejection of this Measure for a second time and by a greater majority, was not unexpected by many of those who have been engaged in the consideration of the deposited book during the last few weeks. It is not for us to question the rights or wrongs of this most controversial dispute, but no thoughtful lawyer can look without grave misgivings at the situation which is arising before his eyes. Among all the many difficulties with which this country has been concerned since the Armistice, that which now confronts us is one of the most serious, for it not only divides religious parties into irreconcilable camps, but as the division list shows, there is also a cleavage in political parties, and even in the Cabinet. itself. History tells us only too clearly that these cleavages are matters of serious importance, and there is much to be said on the largest grounds of national policy for an agreement by all concerned to drop the whole subject for a period of several years. The dust of recent conflicts could then quietly settle, and the solution of those difficulties, which must be found somehow, might become the better visible as the atmosphere cleared. Reservoirs THERE have been during recent years some disasters chronicled in this and other countries which have very forcibly illustrated the perils of impounded water and the loss of life and property which may visit with great suddenness communities in its neighbourhood. On the 19th Nov. 1925 this subject was raised in a question put by Mr. Albery in the Commons, and Sir William Joynson-Hicks, in his reply, stated that, so far as general legislation was concerned, no provision had been made for any independent periodic inspection of water reservoirs or electric power dams. Since that date there have been one or two serious accidents, and as the construction of other public utility works of this description has been mooted it is interesting to note that the Home Secretary himself has departed so far from his attitude of detachment as to promote a Bill of considerable scope to deal with some provisions for safety. The draft first concerns itself with new constructions of what it briefly calls a "* large reservoir." This expression means one designed to hold, or capable of holding, more than five million gallons above the natural level of any part of the land adjoining it. It is proposed that in future such a reservoir shall not be constructed unless a qualified civil engineer is employed to design and supervise the construction. Clause 9 sets out at length what the Government proposes as a test of qualification. The scheme is to set up a panel or panels of civil engineers. If there is more than one panel they will be so arranged as to apply to different purposes or different classes of work. Appointment on the panel or panels will rest with the Home Office and Minister of Health, and any civil engineer may apply but he must satisfy the departments as to his qualification. Power is reserved to remove an engineer from the panel if the departments, after consultation, agree that he is not fit to remain thereon. Duties of Inspection THUS far the Bill has been concerned with construction, but its further purpose is to secure that what has been well made shall remain in good condition. This is to be safeguarded by compulsory periodical inspection in the case of all large reservoirs, whether constructed before or after this Bill becomes law. The undertakers are called upon to employ a qualified and independent engineer, and he is to report as soon as practicable to the undertakers the results of his inspection. In the case of reservoirs made before the Act the inspection must be within three years of its commencement. This applies also to works in process of construction. In the case of those constructed after the Act commences the first inspection must be within ten years from the date of the preliminary certificate. Subsequent inspections must be made at intervals of not more than ten years unless the engineer reports that an earlier inspection is necessary. In such cases the period reported must not be exceeded. Alterations to large reservoirs which do not increase the capacity but might affect its safety must either be supervised by a qualified engineer, or the undertakers must provide for an inspection by an inspecting engineer as soon as the alterations have been completed. Such an engineer has to be given every facility by undertakers and must be given copies of any certificates and all information required by him, including copies of all reports on previous inspections. Any measure of safety reported to be necessary must be carried out as soon as practicable under the supervision of a qualified engineer, but the undertakers, if aggrieved by any requirement, can within one month apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the latter can vary the requirements, and it can in proper cases allow, up to three months, the period left for appeal. Engineers who are consulting engineers to the undertakers can be regarded as independent, but otherwise the independent engineer must not be employed by the undertakers, and he must have no responsibility for, nor be a partner or employee of, the person who designed or constructed the reservoir. Undertakers, their Duties and Responsibilities THE Bill requires them to keep a series of records and to produce them on the demand of an inspecting engineer. These will in themselves be a most essential element in safety, for they will have to be in accordance with prescribed forms, and at prescribed intervals furnishing data as to levels and depths, flow over weirs, leakages, settlements, repairs, and so forth. The undertakers have further, within one month from receipt thereof, to publish a notice as to where a certificate or report can be seen. They must also supply certain information to every council of a county, municipal or metropolitan borough or district likely to be affected by escape of water, and to any person resident or interested in property in an area likely to be affected. The information will be as to the receipt of any certificate or report and as to measures taken or proposed to be taken to give effect to recommendations. All these parties may also demand production for inspection of any certificate or report and can ask for the supply of a copy which is to be certified to be a true copy on payment of the reasonable cost of copying. If this detail should lead to a dispute it can be settled by the registrar of the Railway and Canal Commission. Default in compliance with these requirements renders the undertakers liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. Finally, by clause 8, undertakers are not exonerated from any indictment, action, or other proceedings if damage or injury is caused or threatened by an escape of water from a reservoir constructed after the commencement of the Act, under statutory powers, by the fact that it was so constructed. It is to be observed that in this clause the Bill drops reference to large reservoir," which has a special definition, and uses the unqualified term "reservoir." The undertakers whose liabilities and duties are thus set out will include the owners and lessees of reservoirs not used for the purposes of any undertaking. a 66 The Railway and Canal Commission As already appears, it is to this body that councils or persons aggrieved will turn for redress. The powers conferred on the commission are to make any order as seems necessary in the interests of safety, and in particular to prohibit or suspend the use of a reservoir for water storage or to impose conditions. If the order directs construction of some works, it can incorporate provisions from the Water Works Clauses Acts 1847 to 1863, and where land must be acquired the order can incorporate any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts. The commission, on coming to the conclusion that undertakers have not complied with this measure, can, in addition to making an order, punish them by the forfeit of a sum not exceeding £500 to His Majesty. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888, as amended by later Acts relating to procedure and appeals, is applied to this new subjectmatter with provisos enabling the commission to call in one or more qualified assessors, and to hear the case wholly or partially with their assistance. A local inquiry can be held, and the discretion with respect to costs is not to be limited, as it is in sect. 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1894. Under that section in the case of proceedings other than disputes between two or more companies the commission has no power to award costs on either side unless they are of opinion that either the claim or the defence has been frivolous or vexatious. The Bill affects Scotland, mutatis mutandis, and is due to commence next January. It does not give any authority to hold public inquiries if, despite its anxious provisions, there should be some disaster such as that which occasioned the collapse of a Welsh dam in Nov. 1925. This was an accident due to culpable neglect, and the new Bill goes far to render this cause more remote. It is worth suggesting that, as in 1925, it was discovered that there was no power to order a public inquiry, Parliament might do well to supply the deficiency at this convenient opportunity. Petroleum (Amendment) IT must in common fairness be admitted that the Lords have had, and have used, every opportunity for a careful consideration of this Bill, and the result has been still further amendments on the report stage. Subject to any changes insisted on in the Commons when their Bill comes back to them, it would appear that finality is about reached. Clause 5 has been the chief difficulty in regard to by-laws for filling stations. It has been materially altered in response to Lord Buckmaster's vigorous efforts, and in its new form it enables by-laws to preserve "the amenities of any rural scenery or place of beauty or historic interest or of any public park or pleasure promenade or of any street or place which is of interest by reason of its picturesque character." These by-laws can regulate the appearance of filling stations or prohibit them. In particular, by-laws affecting appearance can deal with their position, design, size, colour, and screening. A new sub-clause deals with removals of all filling stations from an area. The local council is now to be enabled to serve on every occupier of an established station a notice calling upon him to remove it within a period of not less than six months, and the occupier is entitled to recover from the council any expenses reasonably incurred in complying, and if he makes a claim within one year from the service of the notice, he may claim compensation for any loss sustained in direct consequence. The amount, failing agreement, can be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the parties, or, in default, by the Secretary of State. Another new sub-clause gives an occupier power, notwithstanding any agreement or lease, to do all things necessary to comply with the requirements, and the council may, with the occupier's consent and on his behalf, do it for him. Lord Haldane dropped an awkward little bomb during the report stage by discovering that as these by-laws were to be "for the purpose of preserving "amenities, they involved the possibility of the courts having to sift motives, and he urged that this was impossible, and especially so when the person whose motives were at stake was a corporation or council. Notwithstanding this and other objections, all designed not to kill, but to strengthen the Bill, the clause stood unchanged in this respect. If, when finally completed, this item of legislation is really operated by the councils, there should be a real diminution in the disfigurement of the roadside, and, at the same time, clause 5 (iv.) in the Bill, as amended by the Lords on report [Bill 79], explicitly reminds them that in making these by-laws prohibiting establishments they must have regard to the need for reasonable facilities for supplies in or near the part of the area to which the by-laws apply. CRIMINAL LAW BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS Abingdon, Thursday, July 12. Berwick-upon-Tweed, Friday, July 13. Croydon, Thursday, July 19, at 10.30. Derby, Wednesday, June 27, at 10. Grimsby, Tuesday, July 17. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Friday, July 13. Plymouth, Saturday, July 7. Poole, Friday, July 6. Portsmouth, Monday, July 2, at 10. Rotherham, Wednesday, July 11. Saffron Walden, Thursday, July 12. OCCASIONAL NOTES Mr. Justice Shearman and Mr. Justice Humphreys will open the commission at Swansea on the North and South Wales Circuits on Monday next, the 25th inst. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings. Mr. Justice Salter and Mr. Justice Swift will open the commission at Bristol on the Western Circuit on Tuesday next, the 26th inst. When the business at this town is finished they will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings. Mr. Justice Acton will open the commission at Derby on the Midland Circuit on Thursday next, the 28th inst. When the business at this town is finished he will return to London and remain until the end of the present sittings. The Unemployment Appeals will be taken on Monday next. the 25th inst., at 10.30. The June Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next at the Old Bailey at 10 o'clock. Mr. Justice Horridge, Mr. Justice Salter, and Mr. Justice Roche are on the rota to attend. The trial of the Middlesex Special and Common Jury causes will be discontinued during the present sittings after Friday, the 20th July next. The Trinity law term will end on Monday next, the 25th inst. The Union Society of London will hold their annual general meeting on Wednesday next, the 27th inst., in the Middle Temple Common Room at 8 p.m. The Hardwicke Society will hold their annual general meeting on Friday, the 6th July next, in the Inner Temple Middle Room at 8 o'clock p.m. The annual cricket match between the Bar and clerks will be played by permission of the Surrey County Cricket Club at the Kennington Oval to-day (Saturday) at 11 o'clock The proceeds of the " gate money will be devoted to the Barristers' Clerks' Benevolent Fund. a.m. The Minister of Health has appointed Lord Blanesburgh, G.B.E. to be chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind in succession to the late Mr. G. H. Roberts. The committee advises the Minister on matters relating to the care and supervision of the blind, including any question that may be specially referred to them by the Minister. By permission of the Treasurer and Benchers of the Middle Temple a public meeting on behalf of the Central Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society (Incorporated), Victory House, Leicester-square, will be held in the Middle Temple Hall on Thursday, the 28th June, at 4.30 p.m. Mr. Serjeant Sullivan, K.C. will preside and the other speakers will include Mr. Justice Charles, Miss Haldane, Mr. W. J. H. Brodrick (metropolitan magistrate), and Mr. F. P. Whitbread (president). Invitation cards may be obtained on application to Mr. W. W. Jemmett, secretary, at the address of the society, Victory House, Leicester-square, W.C. 2. Thursday, the 14th inst., being the Great Grand Day of Trinity Term at Gray's Inn, the Treasurer (Master R. E. Dummett) and the Masters of the Bench entertained at dinner the following guests: The Swedish Minister, Lord Burnham, G.C.M.G., C.H., Lord Berwick, Lord Riddell, Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P., Sir Gilbert Parker, Bart., Mr. Justice Avory, Sir Edward Chamier, K.C.I.E., The President of the Royal Academy (Sir Frank Dicksee, K.C.V.O.), The President of the Law Society (Sir Cecil A. Coward, LL.D.), Mr. Stuart Bevan, K.C., Mr. H. G. Wells. The Benchers present, in addition to the Treasurer, were: Sir Plunket Barton, Bart., K.C., Mr. Herbert F. Manisty, K.C., Mr. Edward Clayton, K.C., Mr. Arthur E. Gill, Lord Atkin, Sir Montagu Sharpe, K.C., Judge Ivor Bowen, K.C., Sir Alexander Wood Renton, K.C.M.G., K.C., Mr. W. Clarke Hall, Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. William Watson, K.C., M.P., Sir Hamar Greenwood, Bart., K.C., M.P., Vice-Chancellor Courthope Wilson, K.C., Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, K.C., M.P., Mr. C. D. Keogh, Mr. Bernard Campion, K.C., Mr. J. W. Ross-Brown, K.C., Mr. A. Andrewes-Uthwatt, Mr. Malcolm Hilbery, K.C., with the Chaplain (The Rev. W. R. Matthews, D.D.), and the Under-Treasurer (Mr. D. W. Douthwaite). The Bar Golfing Society propose to hold a ball on the 20th July next, and to devote the profits to the Bar Benevolent Association, for which purpose the treasurer and masters of the Bench of Lincoln's Inn have lent their hall, library, and rooms. Dancing from ten p.m. to three a.m. The Hall will be open at 9.30 p.m. Clifford Essex Band has been engaged. The following have kindly consented to be patrons: Mr. Justice Acton, Mr. Justice Astbury, Lord Atkin of Aberdovey, Mr. Justice Avory, Sir John Eldon Bankes, G.C.B., Lord Carson, Sir Arthur Channell, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Dunedin, Lord Finlay, Mr. Justice Finlay, Lord Justice Greer, Mr. Justice Hawke, Sir T. W. H. Inskip, K.C., M.P., Lord Justice Lawrence, Sir Charles Montague Lush, Sir R. A. McCall, K.C., K.C.V.O., Mr. Justice McCardie, Mr. Justice Maugham, Sir F. B. Merriman, K.C., M.P., Lord Morison, Lord Muir Mackenzie, Lord Reading, Mr. Justice Romer, Lord Justice Russell, Mr. Justice Salter, Sir Charles Sargant, Lord Justice Scrutton, Mr. Justice Shearman, Mr. Justice Swift, Lord Trevethin, Sir E. E. Wild, K.C., Lord Wrenbury. The supper and refreshments will be provided by Messrs. Gunter and Co. Limited. Tickets will only be issued to or through members of the society. Price 25s. for each ticket, if applied for on or before the 4th July; 30s. if applied for after that date. Lord Sumner, who was one of the principal guests at the annual dinner last week of the English Association, in the course of his speech spoke of the functions of the Association as being to defend, maintain, practise, and teach the English language, which he ventured to say was the finest in the world. Touching on the association of statesmen with letters he recalled that every Prime Minister since Lord Aberdeen save two, and they were Scotsmen, had been assiduous in their leisure hours in the cultivation of literature. This has always been a noticeable feature in English public life, and it has by no means been confined to the realm of politics. In law it has been equally marked, and Lord Sumner himself is a signal instance of the combination of a profound knowledge of law with the ability to express that knowledge in a style at once incisive and full of literary charm. In his early days, it may be recalled, he was one of the most assiduous contributors to the Dictionary of National Biography, where his characterisations had all the marks of his sarcastic humour, and he was likewise a regular reviewer in the now long-defunct Academy in the days when it was a power in the domain of literary journalism. Among his colleagues on the scarlet benches of the House of Lords there are several who share his love of letters and, like him, have made numerous contributions to literature. Lord Haldane's work in philosophical studies is well known; Lord Shaw has given us several interesting and entertaining volumes of reminiscences as well as some books of a graver cast; from Lord Darling we have had numerous daintily-expressed literary essays; so that we may say that literature is not forgotten in the high places of the law. If two Prime Ministers of Scottish nationality failed to contribute anything to letters this lack was more than compensated by others of their countrymen-Lord Balfour, for example, and in the law by Lord Campbell, whose biographical works, although they were said to have added a new terror to death, are among the most fascinating of books, for their author possessed not only a great mastery of law but also a skill in the presentation of his studies, however prejudiced they sometimes might be. It was to Samuel Warren, as he himself acknowledged that John William Smith, the author of the immortal leading cases," as Thackeray called him in that famous chapter of Pendennis which treats of the Knights of the Temple, owed the suggestion that led him to make his great collection of cases in the common law which, in successive editions, has proved of such immense value and importance for the student and practitioner. In time, Smith's collection led to others in different branches of the law, and among these the collection of leading cases in equity with which the name of Frederick Thomas White and Owen Davies Tudor are associated has been one of the most successful, having now reached its ninth edition, for which Mr. E. P. Hewitt, K.C. and Mr. J. B. Richardson are responsible. The first edition was published in 1849-50, some few years after the compilers had been called to the Bar, and it had a cordial reception both here and in the United States, where numerous editions have been issued. The junior member of the partnership, O. D. Tudor, brought out several other legal treatises, notably his Law of Charitable Trusts, and, obviously influenced by the success of the Leading Cases in Equity, he compiled two more selections of cases dealing respectively with Real Property and Conveyancing and Mercantile Law. In these and other ways he contributed not a little to systematising our legal studies. Mr. Justice Riddell, of the Ontario Bench, has an interesting article in the current number of the American Bar Association Journal under the title, "Thanking the Jury-and the Reverse." After mentioning that in his own court not so long ago, after a verdict of "not guilty" had been returned by the jury in a murder trial, counsel for one of the prisoners was seen to approach the foreman and begin to thank him, whereupon the judge intervened at once with the remark, "The jurors are not to be thanked; they have done their duty and nothing more; I shall not permit that unseemly practice to enter our courts," he proceeds to state the result of his investigations as to any early practice of thanking the jury. From Smith's De Republicà Anglorum he quotes the following passage relative to the jury in criminal cases: "The twelve, as soon as they have given their verdict, are dismissed to go whither they will, and have no manner commodity and profit of their labour to the Prince and commonwealth." It would appear, that at one time it was not unusual to provide the jury with a dinner, but that practice has long become obsolete, and certainly Mr. Justice Riddell's observations in the case in his own court reflect the attitude adopted in every English-speaking judicature, namely, that the jury's function is to be exercised without fear or favour and with no expectation of material reward. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION A CASE FOR THE LAW REFORMER. THAT reluctance to push matters to their logical conclusion which we call the spirit of compromise has long distinguished the English from other races, and has frequently saved them from the disastrous consequences of being thoroughly logical. At the same time this compromising habit is not without its drawbacks, and in few matters are those drawbacks so strikingly illustrated as in the present unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to the compensation to be paid to workmen in respect of injuries occasioned by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment. At the present day there are probably very few who would dispute the essential justice of the principle underlying the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which is that it is the duty of an employer to compensate those whom he employs to make money or perform other services for him if they are injured in consequence of that employment. This principle, however, is not part of the common law of England, but has been imposed upon it within living memory by statute, and it is not very long ago that a workman who was injured, even maimed for life, either by the negligence of a fellow servant or by a pure accident happening while he was at work, was without remedy against his employer. The principle of the common law, known as the doctrine of common employment, was and still is "that a servant, when he engages to serve his master, undertakes, as between himself and his master, to run the ordinary risks of the service, including the risk of negligence upon the part of a fellow servant when he is acting in the discharge of his duty as servant of him who is the common master of both": (see the judgment of Chief Justice Erle in the case of Tunney v. Midland Railway Company, L. Rep. 1 C. P. 291). Moreover, the "ordinary risks of the service" which the servant was deemed to undertake included the risk of a defective carriage in which the servant was sent out. This was decided in the famous case of Priestley v. Fowler (1837, 3 M. & W. 1.), which is generally regarded as the foundation of the doctrine of common employment. The judgment of Lord Abinger in that case, decided only ninety-one years ago, has to modern eyes more the appearance of a caricature of the law than a serious and considered statement of it. For his own personal negligence causing injury to his servant the master was, even at common law, responsible; but the difficulty of proving such negligence was well-nigh insuperable, especially in the case of large concerns, when it is remembered that foremen and even managers were fellow servants of the labourer within the meaning of the doctrine of common employment. The first halting step upon the road to reform was taken in 1880, when the Employers' Liability Act of that year was passed. That Act is a beautiful example of the spirit of compromise at work. Instead of sweeping away the doctrine of common employment altogether and putting the workman on the same footing as the rest of the world as against his employer, both as regards the right of action and the measure of damages recoverable, the Act, in the words of Sir Frederick Pollock, “obscurely indicated a sort of counter principle, and introduced a number of minute and empirical exceptions" to the rule, and it limited the amount of compensation recoverable to a sum equivalent to the estimated earnings, during the three years preceding the injury, of a person in the same grade employed during those years in the like employment and in the district in which the workman was employed at the time of the injury. It is beyond the scope of this article to enter upon a detailed criticism of the Employers' Liability Act, but those who wish to pursue the subject are referred to Sir Frederick Pollock's well-known work on the Law of Torts. The year 1897 is an important landmark in the development of this branch of the law, for in that year the first Workmen's Compensation Act definitely laid down the principle that the employer must compensate his workman for personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the master or of persons in his employment or not. In other words, the mere happening of an accident causing incapacity entitled the workman to compensation from his employer so long as the accident "arose out of and in the course of the employment." Into the subtleties which thirty years of legal decisions have woven round that phrase there is no need to enter. Such investigations are fascinating only to the expert, and have no bearing on the subject of this article. The same remark applies equally to the limitation on the right to compensation where the injury was attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman, and to the gradual process by which all classes of workmen were brought within the Acts. What is germane to our subject is the establishment as a broad principle of the right to compensation, a right which the later Acts have steadily preserved. Now, the principle of compensation being conceded, the layman would not unnaturally suppose that the Act would endeavour in its scale of compensation to provide for the workman, or for his dependants if he were killed, compensation adequate to the loss. It is here, however, that the English habit of compromise plays its part, and we find that, although the principle of compensation for accidental injuries is accepted, its application is confused and illogical, and results in a scale of compensation which would be ludicrous if it were not tragically inadequate. The Act contemplates three cases-viz.: death, total incapacity for work, and partical incapacity for work. In the case of death the Act adopts what may be called the principle of three years' purchase. That is to say, the dependants of the workman are to receive a sum equal to the earnings of the workman during the three years next preceding the injury or the sum of £150, whichever of those sums is the larger. If the Act had stopped there we should have had a reasonable, intelligent and consistent rule; but the Act goes on to provide that in no case shall the total amount of compensation exceed £300, thus imposing a purely arbitrary limitation upon the principle of three years' purchase. It may be that in the year 1897 it was not contemplated that there might be workmen whose total earnings over three years would exceed £300, but the same excuse will not avail those responsible for the Act of 1906, because that Act contemplated by its definition of a workman that the earnings of the injured man before the accident might amount to at least £250 per annum. Yet the Act of 1906 still provides for a sum equal to three years' earnings or the sum of £150 whichever of those sums is the larger" (!), and retains the maximum of £300. So matters remained until the year 1923 when it appears to have occurred to somebody that there had been a general rise of wages since the year 1897, and accordingly it was enacted that the dependants of a deceased workman should receive three years' earnings or £200, whichever of those sums was the larger, but the maximum of £300 was retained. When we reflect that the dependants of a workman earning £2 a week would be entitled on the principle of an unfettered three years' purchase to £312 the munificent character of this reform becomes at once apparent. Another detail which shows how illogically these amendments were carried out in 1923 is that the payment of £10 provided by the Act of 1906 for medical and funeral expenses where the workman leaves no dependants is increased to £15. In other words, the cost of living has gone up 25 per cent. since 1906, i.e., from £150 to £200, but the cost of dying has gone up 50 per cent. These anomalies are all repeated in the Act of 1925, which repealed and re-enacted the earlier Acts. Some attempt was made in the Act of 1923 to remedy the inadequacy of the scale of compensation in the case of death by the provision of additional compensation where the deceased workman left, in addition to a widow or other member of his family, one or more children under the age of fifteen dependent upon his earnings. But even in such a case the principle of the arbitrary maximum was retained, though the amount was increased to £600, with the result that in practice where the workman leaves a widow and a number of young children, either the sums payable in accordance with the mathematical calculation prescribed by the Act in respect |