of loading; and (2) that having regard to the prohibition against exportation, the charterers ought to be allowed a reasonable time to make other arrangements. Appeal dismissed.

[Bunge y Born Limitada Sociedad Anonima Commercial Financiera y Industrial v. H. A. Brightman and Co. H. of L. Lords Cave (L.C.), Dunedin, Atkinson, Sumner, and Buckmaster. June 16 and July 24.-Counsel for the appellants, Jowitt, K.C. and Van Breda; for the respondents, Le Quesne, K.C., Sir Robert Aske, and McNair. Solicitors for the appellants, Richards and Butler; for the respondents, Botterell and Roche, agents for Botterell, Roche, and Temperley, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.]

Workmen's compensation-Personal injury by accident“ arising out of and in the course of his employment Total incapacity -Period of partial incapacity prior to 31st Dec. 1923Total incapacity subsequent to that date-Compensation— Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts 1917 and 1919-Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (13 & 14 Geo. 5, c. 42) s. 1.

Appeals by the employers from interlocutors of the First Division of Court of Session in Scotland affirming determinations of the Sheriff Substitute under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. The two appeals raised the same question, and were heard together. The relevant circumstances which gave rise to these appeals were, shortly stated, these. In each case the respondent had in 1922 sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, by which he was totally incapacitated until the autumn of 1923. From then on till Feb. 1924 he was partially incapacitated as a result of his injury. He then once more became totally incapacitated for work as the result of the same injury, and so continued at the date of the arbitrator's award. The question to be determined, therefore, was whether a man, who was on the 31st Dec. 1923 admittedly not in the position of being totally incapacitated, could be held, within the meaning of the proviso to sect. 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, to remain totally incapacitated as a result of his injury, if at any time after the commencement of the Act there should occur a recurrence of total incapacity. The Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 provides by sect. "The Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts 1917 and 1919, shall cease to have effect after the 31st Dec. 1923 and are hereby repealed: Provided that the addition provided for in the said Acts shall continue to apply to a weekly payment payable to a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), or under any enactment superseded by that Act in respect of total incapacity arising from an accident which occurred on or before the said thirty-first day of December, so long as the workman remains totally incapacitated, and the same shall, for all purposes, be treated as if it were part of the weekly payment." The arbitrator held that, under sect. 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, the provision of the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts 1917 and 1919 were applicable to his claim, and assessed compensation accordingly, and the First Division of the Court of Session affirmed his view. The owners appealed.

1:

Held, that the workman was entitled to the additions to the weekly payments of compensation provided under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts 1917 and 1919. Appeal dismissed.

[Glasgow Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Dickson; Coltness Iron Company Limited v. Dalgleish. H. of L.: Lords Dunedin, Shaw, Atkinson, Sumner, and Darling. July 24.-Counsel : for the appellants in both cases, Morrice Mackay, K.C. and James R. Marshall (both of the Scottish Bar); for the respondent in the first case, Craigie Aitchison, K.C. and R. Gibson (both of the Scottish Bar); for the respondent in the second case, Carmont, K.C. and D. A. Murray (both of the Scottish Bar). Solicitors : for the appellants in both cases, Beveridge and Co., for W. T. Craig, Glasgow, and W. and J. Burness, W.S., Edinburgh; for the first respondent, H. M. Meyler, for J. Cassells, Hamilton, and W. G. Leechman and Co., Edinburgh; for the second respondent, H. H. Wells and Sons, for Donald C.-Orr, Hamilton and Balfour and Mason, S.S.C., Edinburgh.]

Second Sheet

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta dated the 26th Nov. 1924. The action was brought by the appellant, who was a passenger conductor, against the respondents for wrongful dismissal. By an agreement entered into in Nov. 1920 between the respondents and their employees the contract of service between the appellant and the respondents was regulated. Art. 10, dealing with the subject of disc pline and dismissal was in the following terms: No trainman shall be disciplined or dismissed until his case has been investigated and he has been proven guilty of the offence against him, and decision rendered. He, however, may be held off for such investigation for a period not exceeding three days and when so held off he will be notified in writing that he is being held off for that purpose and advised of the charges against him. He may, if he desires, enjoy the privilege of the assistance of a fellow employee in stating his case at the investigation and will be given a copy of statement made by him at the investigation. All material and necessary witnesses must be notified in writing to appear. If they appear their evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused. If they do not appear the accused shall be furnished with a copy of their written statements and their names. If accused is not satisfied with the decision he will be given an opportunity of reviewing the evidence and may appeal through his representatives to the higher officials. Should the charge not be proven the trainman will be reinstated at once and paid for all time lost at schedule rates and reasonable actual expenses. Should the charge be proven the trainman will be paid his reasonable actual expenses for the time he may be held away from his home terminal in excess of three days, but nothing for the time lost, nor for expenses if not held longer than said three days. Note-It is understood that men will not be held off unnecessarily and caused to lose time under above rule. When a trainman is discharged or resigns he will, within five days, be paid and given a certificate, stating the term of service and in what capacity he was employed." The appellant having been accused of certain irregularities in connection with his work, an investigation into these charges was held at which the appellant was present. As the result of the investigation the appellant was dismissed. Instead of appealing under art. 10 to the higher officials of the respondent company the appellant instituted the present action upon the footing that the railway company had violated, by inaccuracy and impropriety of procedure, art. 10 of the agreement, and claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. In the Trial Division of the Supreme Court Walsh, J. gave judgment in favour of the appellant for $10,000. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court reversed this judgment and dismissed the appellant's action with costs; hence the present appeal.

Held, that the allegations made by the appellant against the regularity or propriety of the investigation being proved to be unfounded the action failed and must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

COURT OF APPEAL Company Winding-up-Debt due from company to 0.Partnership debt due to the company by P, and O.-Liquidator's right to refuse payment to O. un'il partnership joint debt paidPrinciple of Cherry v. Boultbee not applicable.

Appeal from part of an order made by Eve, J. sitting in the Companies (Winding-up) on the 1st July 1925, when he refused to make an order directing the liquidator of P. and O. Limited to pay to D. Limited, assignees of O., the amount

of debt due from P. and O. Limited to O., the proof of which was admitted for £5816 17s. 8d. Prior to the formation of P. and O. Limited in 1920 O. and P. carried on business in partnership and they were the only shareholders in the company. In March 1921 the company was ordered to be wound-up compulsorily. O. had a claim for £5816 17s. 8d. against the company in respect of an agreement which he had entered into with the company as managing director, the proof for which in Feb. 1925 was ordered by the court to be admitted, the liquidator not to pay till further order. On the 20th Feb. 1925 O. assigned to D. Limited, the appellants, this debt subject to a charge for £800. The liquidator refused to pay the appellants this sum until a sum of £4702 15s. 2d., owing by the partnership firm of P. and O. to the company was paid, or he claimed to set off that amount against the £5816 17s. 8d., and also that O. was liable first to pay all calls which might be owing by him to the company on the shares taken up in the company by him. It was admitted on behalf of the liquidator that unless the principle of Cherry v. Boultbee (4 Myl. & Cr. 442) was applicable or could be extended to include the case where a joint debt was sought to be set off against a separate debt he could not succeed. There was no question that the liquidator had a right to set off any debt due to the company by O. for calls on his shares.

Held, that the appeal must be allowed, as the principle in Cherry v. Boultbee (ubi sup.) had been sought to be extended in Turner v. Turner (104 L. T. Rep. 901; (1911) 1 Ch. 716) so as to entitle executors to retain a joint debt owing from a firm out of legacies or a share of residue given to an individual partner; but this court had refused to apply the principle to such a case, and in the same way must now refuse to apply the principle to set off a partnership, and therefore a joint debt against a separate debt due to 0.

[Re Pennington and Owen Limited. Ct. of App.: Sir Ernest Pollock, M.R. and Warrington, L.J. July 27.Counsel for the appellants, Edward Clayton, K.C., and St. John Field; for the respondents, B. A. Hall; R. W. Turnbull, for a contributory. Solicitors: for the appellants, Woolfe and Woolfe; for the respondents and the contributory, Le Brasseur and Oakley.]

CHANCERY DIVISION Charity-Bequest for the maintenance and upkeep of a masonic temple at trustees' sole discretion, the balance, if any, for masonic charities-Whole gift held void for uncertainty.

By a codicil to his will the above-named testator directed his trustee, after the death of his wife "to pay from his estate to the trustees of the Province of Sussex Masonic Temple, erected by him to the memory of his deceased son S., the sum of £10,000 free of duty (to be known as the Porter Trust Fund) to be invested by them and the interest thereof applied to the maintenance and upkeep of the temple at their full and sole discretion, the balance (if any) to be applied annually in favour of any masonic charities as they might in their full discretion select." He died in 1924, and this summons was taken out by the widow asking whether this bequest was good.

Held, that a legacy for the maintenance and upkeep of such a building was not a good charitable bequest unless the gift of the annual surplus could be construed as a gift of the whole income, and not of what remained after the void gift. Then the question arose-Could there be an inquiry as to what could properly be expended on the first purpose so as to treat that as invalid and the remainder good? The test was-Was the object of the primary gift sufficiently definite to enable the court to ascertain what should be expended on it? If so, then the first failed, and the whole was applicable to charity. If not, the whole gift failed. Here the trustees might apply the whole in their discretion to the first purpose. The result was that the whole gift was too indefinite. It was therefore void for uncertainty.

[Re Porter; Porter v. Porter. Chan.. Div.: Eve, J. July 10 and 17.-Counsel: Willoughby Williams; Gover, K.C. and Ackroyd; Roope Reeve, K.C. and Swords; Vaisey, K.C. and E. Beaumont; Dighton Pollock. Solicitors: Quicke and Card, agents for Montague Williams and Son, Brighton; Walbrook and Hoskin, for Brighouse, Jones, and Co., Southport ; Long and Gardiner for F. W. Cushman, Brighton; The Treasury Solicitor.]

Landlord and tenant-Lease-Covenant not to use the dwellinghouse "for the purpose of any trade or business"-Covenant not to use the dwelling-house "otherwise than as a private dwelling-house or professional residence only”—Paying guests -Publicity.

A sub-lease contained a covenant "not to use or permit the said dwelling-house to be used for the purpose of any trade or business whatsoever or otherwise than as a private dwelling-house or professional residence only." The subtenant took friends as paying guests. These were secured by private notifications and never by public announcements of the address of the house. The sub-lessors brought an action for an injunction to restrain her from " using or permitting to be used the premises for the purpose of the business of a boarding-house or for letting lodgings and (or) of receiving lodgers and (or) paying guests or for any trade or business otherwise than as a private dwellinghouse or professional residence only."

Held, that when a person of set purpose occupies a house which is beyond her means, and, for the purpose of supplementing her means, and continuing to live in the house, secures visitors to come and live there for long and short periods upon payment of sums for board and residence, it is impossible to say that the house is being used as a private dwelling-house only. Held, further, that when the receiving of paying guests is done as a permanent process, and the house is kept available for the accommodation of any approved person who is prepared to pay, it falls into the category of a business.

[Thorn v. Madden. Ch. Div.: Tomlin, J. July 17.— Counsel Gavin Simonds, K.C. and Baden Fuller; Ross Brown, K.C. and Nicholas Cockshutt. Solicitors: Holt Beever and Co.; Slaughter, Colegrave, and Cockshutt.] Practice Real estate-Vesting order—All trustees dead and no administration in this country to last survivor-Some beneficiaries married women in U.S.A.-Affidavits of no incumbrances and no settlements not registered—Trustee Act 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 26.

In this case a petition was presented by beneficiaries under the will of the testator asking for a vesting order of real estate under the Trustee Act of 1893, s. 26, in the following circumstances. By his will he devised real estate in Yorkshire to trustees to pay the rents to his niece E. M. for life, and then to stand seised thereof for her children at twenty-one, their heirs and assigns as tenants in common. There were six of them all resident in the U.S.A., three of whom being daughters, all of whom were married. E. M. and the trustees were all dead, and there was no representative to the last surviving trustee in this country. The six, therefore, now applied to have the estate as tenants in common in equal shares. The question then arose whether such an order could be made in the absence of affidavits of no incumbrances and no settlements in the case of the daughters. Since the death of the last surviving trustee the rents had been paid direct by their solicitors to the six children.

Held, that had this been a case of payment out of court of the proceeds of the estate such evidence would, semble, be necessary, but being an application for a vesting order under the Trustee Act there appeared to be no rule of practice which required it. The order would therefore go as asked.

[Re Graves. Chan. Div.: Eve, J. July 15.-Counsel: Potts. Solicitors: Gamlen, Bowerman, and Forward.]

KING'S BENCH DIVISION

Coal mine-Safety—Danger from fire-Withdrawal of menReadmission to deal with fire-Fresh danger from inflammable gas Statutory duty-Coal Mines Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 50), ss. 67, 75, 102.

In a coal mine, of which the respondent was the agent, and which, being a gaseous mine, was not allowed to be worked with naked lights, fires and explosions of gas occurred, and all men employed in coal-getting were withdrawn, but workmen were readmitted for the purpose of damming off the fire, with equipment suitable for that purpose. Inflammable gas accumulated to the extent of more than 2 per cent. in the general body of air in which these men were working, and there was an explosion which killed a number of them. The respondent was then summoned under sects. 67 and 75 of the Coal Mines Act 1911,

66

for permitting workmen to be readmitted to a part of the mine which the persons in charge of the mine had found to be dangerous by reason of the presence of inflammable gas. Sect. 67 provides : (1) If at any time it is found by the person for the time being in charge of the mine or any part thereof, that by reason of the prevalence of inflammable or noxious gases or of any cause whatever the mine or any place in the mine is dangerous, every workman shall be withdrawn from the mine or place found dangerous, and a fireman, examiner, or deputy, or other competent person authorised by the manager or under-manager for the purposes shall inspect the mine or place found dangerous and if the danger arises from inflammable gas, shall inspect the mine or place with a locked safety lamp and in every case shall make a full and accurate report of the condition of the mine or place; and a workman shall not, except in so far as is necessary for inquiring into the cause of danger or for the removal thereof, or for exploration, be readmitted into the mine or place found dangerous, until the same is reported by the fireman, examiner, or deputy not be dangerous. (2) For the purposes of this section, a place shall be deemed to be dangerous if the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in that place is found to be two and a half or upwards, or, if situate in a part of a mine worked with naked lights, one and one quarter or upwards.

66

66

(4) If a workman discovers the presence of inflammable gas in his working place, he shall immediately withdraw therefrom and inform the fireman, examiner or deputy." By sect. 75, Any person who contravenes or does not comply with any of the provisions of this part of this Act " [which includes sect. 67] shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and, in the event of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Part of this Act by any person whomsoever, the owner, agent, and manager of the mine shall each be guilty of an offence against this Act, unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable means by publishing and to the best of his power enforcing those provisions to prevent that contravention or non-compliance." By sect. 102 (1), “Where proceedings are taken under this Act against the owner or agent of a mine in respect of an offence under this Act for which the owner, agent, or manager or each of them is liable under this Act, the owner or agent shall not be liable to any penalty if he proves to the satisfaction of the court.

(c) That the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent, or connivance." The justices dismissed the case on the ground that when men had been readmitted to a mine for the purpose of dealing with a danger the first part of the sect. 67 did not apply.

Held, that the statutory precautions were not abrogated by the arising of a danger, and that, when men had been readmitted for the purpose of dealing with the fire and a new cause of danger arose from the accumulation of inflammable gas, the statutory duty was to withdraw the men and decide whether it was better to deal with the accumulation of gas or to proceed with some carefully considered plan for damming off the fire, and the case must be remitted to the justices to determine whether the respondent had any defence under sect. 75 or sect. 102.

[Wing v. Pickering. K. B. Div.: Lord Hewart, C.J., Avory and Shearman, JJ. July 23 and 24.-Counsel: Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C. (A.-G.), F. Lowenthal, and H. I. P. Hallett; Sir Henry Maddocks, K.C., and H. V. Rabagliati. Solicitors: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Peacock and Goddard, for Elliot Smith and Co., Mansfield.] Libel-Privileged publication-Report of Dominion High Commissioner to Dominion Prime Minister-Publication in Dominion Parliamentary papers-Publication to clerks and servants-Publication in newspapers.

Action for libel. The plaintiffs, four firms of fruit brokers in the city of London known as the F. B. Association, sued the defendant, the High Commissioner of Australia, in the following circumstances. The defendant made a report to the Prime Minister of Australia with regard to the sale of Australian fruit in London, as follows: " Oranges -two Victorian shipments were forwarded to the city for sale by auction. This did not prove to be a wise plan, as, in the first place, very low prices were realised and the fruit was bought by Covent Garden merchants, who, in some cases made 100 per cent. on their purchases. Covent Garden is an established market, and buyers have got into the habit of looking to that centre to make their purchases;

consequently, the fruit sold in the city was almost unheard of, and was practically at the mercy of traders, who did not enter into competition with one another and bought as cheaply as possible." The report was published in Australian newspapers, copies of which were on sale at Australia House in London. The plaintiffs alleged that the report was libellous and injurious to them in their trade or business. The defendant pleaded: (6) The

words were published to the Prime Minister of Australia in Australia in pursuance of the defendant's duty as High Commissioner for Australia, and were therefore absolutely privileged; (7) The words were ordered to be printed by the Senate or House of Representatives and were circulated under the authority of the (Australian) Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 and were therefore privileged; (8) The publication was justified in Australia, and no action in respect of it would lie in England. (11) Publication

to clerks or typists in the ordinary course of business was privileged. The preliminary points arising out of these defences were ordered to be tried in the special paper under Order XXV., r. 2.

Held, (1) the publication of the report to the Prime Minister of Australia was absolutely privileged as a State document; (2) that consequential publication to clerks and servants in making the report was absolutely privileged ; (3) that no action would lie in England for the publication ordered by the Australian Parliament; (4) as to the publication in newspapers in Australia and in England the issues were left open for the trial of the action.

[M. Isaacs and Sons Limited v. Cook. K. B. Div. : Roche, J. July 24.-Counsel: Sir John Simon, K.C., and Lord Erleigh; Stuart Bevan, K.C., and Wilfrid Lewis. Solicitors: Smith and Hudson; Coward, Chance, and Co.]

Revenue Income tax-Exemption—Body established for charitable purposes only-Income Tax Act 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. 5, c. 40), s. 37 (1) (b).

66

The applicants were an association of headmasters of schools, and the objects of the association, as set out in the memorandum, included (inter alia) the promotion of the cause of secondary education and the improvement of the status and position of persons engaged in the profession. The applicants claimed the repayment of income tax under sect. 37 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1918, which provides : Exemption shall be granted—. (b) from tax under Schedule C in respect of any interest, annuities dividends or shares of annuities, and from tax under Schedule D, in respect of any yearly interest or other annual payment forming part of the income of any body of persons or trust established for charitable purpose only, or which, according to the rules or regulations established by Act of Parliament, charter, decree, deed of trust, or will, are applicable to charitable purposes only, and so far as the same are applied to charitable purposes only. The Special Commissioners of Income Tax refused to allow the claim, and the applicants obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to direct the commissioners to allow it on the ground that the applicants were a body established for charitable purposes only.

Held, that on the facts the applicants were not a body established for charitable purposes only and therefore the rule must be discharged.

[Rex v、Special Commissioners of Income Tax; Ex parte Headmasters' Conference. K. B. Div.: Lord Hewart, C.J., Avory and Shearman, JJ. July 22 and 23.-Counsel : Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C. (A.-G.), and Reginald P. Hills ; Konstam, K.C. and R. P. Croom-Johnson. Solicitors: The Solicitor of Inland Revenue; Vandercom, Stanton, and Co.] Ship Charter-party-Orders as to part of discharge to be given to ship after arrival at port of call-Obligation of ship to wait for orders at port of call.

66

Special case stated by an umpire for the opinion of the court. By a charter-party dated the 26th June 1924 the claimants chartered a steamer to bring a cargo of wheat and (or) maize and (or) rye from the River Plate. The charter-party provided: (4) That being so loaded the steamer shall with all convenient speed proceed to St. Vincent (Cape Verde) or Las Palmas or Teneriffe (Canary Islands) or Madeira or Dakar, at the master's option, for orders to discharge at a safe port in the United Kingdom or on the Continent (22) Orders as to port of discharge are to be given to the master within twenty-four

66

hours after receipt by consignees of master's telegraphic report to consignees of his arrival at the port of call The steamer left Rosario with a cargo of maize on the 2nd July 1924, and arrived at St. Vincent at 2.40 p.m. on Saturday, the 2nd Aug. About twenty-four hours before arriving at St. Vincent the master sent a wireless message to the charterers in London saying that he was nearing St. Vincent, and on arrival there he cabled to them that the ship had arrived and was awaiting orders. Owing to the fact that Monday, the 4th Aug., was a Bank Holiday the cable did not reach the charterers until Tuesday, the 5th Aug. The steamer left St. Vincent at 8 p.m. on the 2nd Aug. for Las Palmas, where she arrived on the 7th Aug., the master having arranged that any message which might come for him should be forwarded to the ship by wireless from St. Vincent. On the 6th Aug. the charterers sold the cargo as shipped in good condition per s.s. W. arr.ved St. Vincent." On the 14th Aug. the purchasers having learned that the ship was not at St. Vincent awaiting orders, refused to accept the cargo except at a reduction of £302 4s. 8d. from the contract price. The charterers claimed this sum from the owners as damages for breach of contract in not waiting at St. Vincent until they received orders as to port of discharge, or, alternatively, in not waiting for a reasonable time after the expiration of twentyfour hours. The owners contended that the master was not obliged to wait at St. Vincent after the expiration of twenty-four hours or at all, provided that before leaving he had made arrangements to have orders forwarded to him by wireless, and that the damages in any case were too remote. The umpire held that the owners were not liable to the charterers by reason of the fact that the steamer did not wait at St. Vincent. Upon a case stated for the opinion of the court,

Held, that it was an implied term of the charter-party that the ship should wait at St. Vincent for twenty-four hours and a reasonable time thereafter. In view of the fact that she arrived on the 2nd Aug. and that the 4th Aug. was a Bank Holiday, she should have waited until at least the 6th Aug. The charterers had broken their contract with the purchasers of the cargo, and the damages they had to pay by way of reduction from the contract price were not too remote. The charterers were therefore entitled to the damages claimed.

[Proctor, Garratt, Marston Limited (Rosario) v. Oakwin Steamship Company Limited. K. B. Div.: Roche J. July 23. Counsel for the charterers, A. R. Kennedy, K.C. and Van Breda; for the owners, Dunlop, K.C., and Holman. Solicitors: Richards and Butler; Holman, Fenwick, and Willan.]

LAW LIBRARY

The New Conveyancing, by Sir Arthur Underhill (Butterworth and Co.), is an admirable book which will give the practitioner a grasp of the principles of the new law of property and assist him to understand the five Acts of 1925, together with the new system of conveyancing which these entail. The book is in four parts: Part I. gives a clear general survey of the Property Acts; Part II. contains the Property Statutes; Part III., Analytical and Comparative Tables; and Part IV. comprises a Subject Index to the Property Statutes, in which references to Part I. are printed in black type. The fact that the effect of the new Act can be but gradually observed is stressed by the author, who is also of opinion that investigation of titles will have to be conducted for many years on the old lines, and that there will be no lack of work for the skilled conveyancer. Sir Arthur gratefully acknowledges help in collating the Acts from Miss Lilian M. Snow, as well as in the reading of proofs. A few blank pages for memoranda, inserted in the book, add to the convenience and utility of the work.

BOOKS RECEIVED

Vol. CXVI. of British and Foreign State Papers for 1922. H.M. Stationery Office, Adastral House, Kingsway, W.C. 2. Price £1 5s. net.

Temperley on Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 with Notes, &c. Second Edition. Price 5s. net. Postage 4d.

The Financial Times Income Tax Guide. Revised by G. H. Bridge. 1925 edition. Price 1s. net.

Woods' Workmen's Compensation and Insurance Reports for 1925. Part I. Stevens and Sons Limited; Sweet and Maxwell Limited. Annual subscription, 30s. post free.

Mews' Digest of English Case Law. By Spencer. Quarterly Issue, July 1925. Stevens and Sons Limited; Sweet and Maxwell Limited.

Vol. XLI., No. 163, July 1925. The Law Quarterly Review. Editor, Sir Frederick Pollock. Stevens and Sons Limited.

THE Bill brought in by Sir Walter de Frece has received a very fair and careful consideration throughout its course. Standing Committee C introduced certain amendments of a reasonable character, and the Lords made some additions and modifications. These came up for consideration on the 23rd July, and were agreed to. The result of these labours of the Legislature should be beneficial. The Bill sets up registration authorities, and imposes upon them certain duties. The authorities are the common council as respects the City of London, the councils of county boroughs, and the county councils, and to them is entrusted the task of keeping a register of theatrical employers, and this register is to be open to any member of the public during ordinary office hours on payment of a fee. Every theatrical employer must, not more than six weeks nor less than three weeks before registering himself, insert in some London stage newspaper, and in two different issues thereof, a notice of his intention to register himself together with the date thereof. This compulsory registration affects every person who by himself or any agent engages or employs at any one time three or more theatrical performers, i.e., any actor, singer, dancer, acrobat, or performer of any kind employed to act, sing, dance, play, or perform in any theatre, music hall, or other place of public entertainment or to rehearse with a view to these ends. Persons can also be treated as performers who are employed to take part in the acting or representation of any play, act, event, or scene, being photographed or otherwise recorded as a picture or other optical effect suitable and intended for exhibition by means of the cinematograph or other similar apparatus." Performers" may also include chorus or crowd, but not stage hands or members of the orchestra. The employers will have, therefore, to register themselves, and set out all prescribed particulars. If any event occurs which varies any of the particulars registered, the same must be notified in writing, and the certificate of registration has to be amended, a fee of 40s. being the maximum which the registration authority can impose for the original registration with no additions for amendments thereof. The certificate of registration is to be evidence of the facts to which it relates,. and all the facts contained in it are to be transmitted to the Secretary of State and the particulars are to be open to public inspection.

The Offences

THERE may have been serious delinquencies other than that first set out in this Bill which have led to the demand for greater legal powers, but desertions of performers are amongst the most grave abuses which the promoters of this legislation are m nded to determine. The Bill has been modified so that it will hit the employer who during the course of a theatrical engagement (and not merely, as originally drawn, a "touring" engagement) deserts his performers. Abandonment will be imputed where the employer absents himself from the place of performance without paying all wages.

fees, and expenses due unless he can prove that his absence was apart from any intention to avoid payments. Another offence is consequential on legislation and deals with those who, after the 1st Jan. 1926, carry on business without being registered. A third arises out of the supply of false or misleading or incorrect particulars or failure to notify amendments. A fourth is found in applying for registration, except as the measure expressly ordains, after registration has been cancelled or is suspended. The last relates to failure to produce a certificate on the hearing of any charge under this Bill without reasonable excuse. The italicised word represents another change made by the Lords instead of "lawful as passed by the Commons. The Lords here add words to deal with companies and firms whose directors or managers have suffered cancellation or registration, and which seek registration as an employer. Further and more material amendments follow. The Bill provides for penalties on summary conviction up to £50 with or without imprisonment up to three months with the additional penalty of cancellation or suspension of the registration for such a period as the court thinks fit, and the costs of the prosecution may have to be paid by the person convicted either in whole or part. An appeal lies to quarter sessions in the manner prescribed by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. The chairman and all directors and every managing officer of a company which has committed an offence are to be deemed to have committed the like offence unless they can prove that the act constituting it took place without their knowledge or consent. At this point, again, the Lords have added a new clause, the effect of which will be to empower a court of summary jurisdiction, where a deliberate intention on an employer's part is found to avoid a contract with the performers, to cancel or suspend registration.

Registration, Cancelled or Suspended

THE Bill throws upon the clerks of courts, by which a theatrical employer's registration has been thus treated, the duty of endorsing the certificate and sending it to the registration authority and of notifying the Secretary of State. After cancellation an employer has to apply to the court for an order authorising him to register himself and the court can impose conditions, but no order is possible within three years of the date of cancellation. A change made by the Lords mitigates to some extent the penalty of cancellation. The Commons proposed that it should be an offence if a person whose registration was cancelled should, during the time of unregistration, act as servant (except as a theatrical performer) of or as agent for an employer. The Lords amendment would allow such a person to act as a servant of a theatrical employer. Another important change makes the measure inapplicable to any person to whom or to whose agent a licence under the Theatres Act 1843, s. 7, or a licence for music or dancing has been given so long as the licence remains in force. It will not apply either to any person, who not for gain or in the way of business, employs or engages performers for charitable performances, or for other similar purposes. The final change made by the Lords applies the Bill to Scotland. The only point in regard to that worth comment is that the Speaker had to fulfil his duty to call attention to a matter of privilege by reason of some words in the Lords amendment relating to rates.

Authorship and Libel

SIR WILLIAM BULL cannot of course expect much early progress with his measure to protect authors, but the presentation of its proposals is convenient so that an unhurried examination may be given to their scope and implications. It is claimed that authors and publishers of books of fiction are threatened and actually assailed with libel actions in respect of imaginary references in their works to real persons. A further claim is made by the introducer of the Bill that criminal or summary proceeding are taken against publishers and others in respect of alleged obscene matter contained in literary, dramatic, or artistic works, and that the authors not being defendants have no locus standi to appear and defend their work or their reputation. These two main points being in view, the Bill makes no action for libel maintainable in respect of any defamatory matter contained in a literary or dramatic work purporting to be a work of fiction, unless the intention is proved to publish this matter of and concerning the plaintiff. If an action be commenced the defendant may, at any time before delivering his defence and after receipt of the statement

of claim, apply for dismissal with costs on the ground that there is no reasonable probability of proving such intention. Evidence can be adduced on affidavit by either party on the hearing of the application, and the court or the judge may, after reading it, order that unless the plaintiff gives security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of one of the masters the action shall stand dismissed, or the court or judge may, as a condition of giving judgment or making any order in the defendant's favour, put him on such terms as to an explanation or an apology or the alteration of names of characters or otherwise as may seem just. The second main purpose of the Bill is to entitle an author, as already indicated, to defend his work and his reputation. The Bill requires the Crown or other party prosecuting in respect of the publication of any alleged blasphemous, seditious, or obscene matter contained in a literary, dramatic, or artistic work to notify the author, when he is not a defendant, and give him an opportunity of appearing at the hearing and contending that the matter complained of is not blasphemous, seditious, or obscene. The court or judge is to stay all further proceedings until satisfied that the author has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing On appearing the author is to be heard and allowed to adduce evidence, and no defendant is to be convicted on any order made prejudicial to the work or to the author unless, after hearing the author's evidence, the court is satisfied that the matter is in fact of that description.

OCCASIONAL NOTES

Mr. Justice Wright will be the Vacation judge for the second part of the Long Vacation commencing on Monday, the 7th Sept. next, up to and including the 11th Oct. next. Mr. Justice Finlay will so act for the first part of the Vacation commencing to-day (Saturday) and ending on Saturday, the 5th Sept.

The West Gate to the Temple will be closed for the Long Vacation.

Mr. Justice Finlay will sit in King's Bench Judges' Chambers on Tuesday next, the 4th inst. at 10.30 a.m., to hear applications and summonses. On the following day (Wednesday) he will sit in the Lord Chief Justices' Court, also at 10.30, to hear motions and other Vacation business.

Master Ball will act as the Long Vacation Master for the first part of the Vacation commencing to-day (Saturday) up to and including Saturday the 5th Sept. For the first week of the Vacation Master Daldy will also sit in Masters' Chambers.

Mr. Registrar Jolly will be the Long Vacation Registrar for the first part of the Vacation. The Registrars' room is 180 in the Royal Courts of Justice.

There will be no Sessions held at the Guildhall, Westminster, for cases arising in the County of Middlesex during the month of August. The next Session (Intermediate Session) will commence on Saturday, the 26th Sept. next.

On the 24th July, Mr. Cecil George Whiteley, K.C. was presented by the magistrates of Sandwich with an oil painting of the interior of the town hall. Mr. Whiteley has been Recorder of Sandwich since 1921.

The Administrator of Hungarian Property (Cornwall House, Stamford-street, London, S.E.1) announces that a third dividend of 1s. in the £ will be paid to all creditors who are entitled to participate. The first distribution of the dividend will be made on the 31st July 1925. An individual notice will be sent to each creditor as and when he becomes entitled to participate.

The First Division of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal is suffering a severe loss owing to its president, Professor Eugene Borel, finding it necessary to relinquish his post as its president owing to the claims made upon him by his legal work at Geneva, where he is the professor of international law. His great knowledge on that subject has made him conspicuous in a town which has always been conspicuous for the learning of its professors in jurisprudence, and has lately gained further distinction by being the seat of the League of Nations, and that learning Mr. Borel brought with him when he gave his services as president of this international court, which has had to solve problems more complicated in some instances than the most complicated in municipal law,