had to make the Act; in the second place, it apparently had reference only to a prelate's wife. As, however, the Court's judgment mentions that the bishops' Act made reference to "the like ordinance made before that Act in favour of ministers," it is possible that all the bishops did was to extend to themselves the provisions of the Act of Assembly of 1595.

Morison's Dictionary contains an interesting collection of cases relative to ann from 1629 onwards, but we only reach firm ground with an Act of Parliament of 23rd August, 1672, which provides that, for the good of the church, "a stated and equal "course be taken for clearing and securing the ann due to the "executors of deceased bishops, beneficed persons, and stipendiary "ministers," viz., that "in all cases hereafter the ann shall be an "half year's rent of the benefice or stipend over and above what "is due to the defunct for his incumbency, which is now settled 'to be thus, viz.:-If the incumbent survive Whitsunday there "shall belong to them, for their incumbency, the half of that "year's stipend or benefice, and for the ann the other half; and "if the incumbent survive Michaelmas he shall have right to that "whole year's rent for his incumbency, and for his ann shall "have the half-year's rent of the following year; and that the "executors shall have right hereto, without expenses or necessity of a confirmation."

Here practically the statutory history of ann ends (though it is mentioned in other Acts), and there is something refreshing in contemplating a branch of law which reached finality more than 220 years ago. There have, of course, been cases, but they are not numerous. One of the most important is that of M'Dermet's Children, July 14, 1747, M. 464, which decides that as between widow and children ann is divided, onehalf going to the widow and the children receiving among them the other half. Colvill v. The Lord Balmerino, July 6, 1665, M. 466, decides that where there is neither wife nor children the annat belongs to the nearest of kin. In another case a minister who died had neither wife nor child, and being apparently not on good terms with his sister, his next of kin, he bequeathed his ann to his brother's son. The sister contended that the ann "was not the defunct's, but being given "in the time of Popery, when churchmen were neither allowed "wives nor children, it belonged to the nearest of kin." The Court gave the sister the ann as next of kin, but scarcely, one thinks, because of her arguments (Alexander v. Cunningham, Mar. 18, 1686, M. 470). One case refers to the ann of "Mr. Alexander Shiels, minister at St. Andrews, who died in our colony of Darien in 1700." What was the minister of St.

Andrews doing in that unfortunate expedition? (Shiels' Representatives v. Town of St. Andrews, Feb. 8, 1709, M. 466). The most important and enlightening of all recent ann cases is Latta's case above referred to, where the First Division held that the payments of stipend and of ann under the Act 1672, c. 13, were not affected by the Apportionment Act of 1870.

It is somewhat curious to notice that nowhere in the whole range of ann cases has this point come up for decision, is there representation in ann? Suppose a minister has two sons, A and B; A dies leaving children C and D; are C and D entitled to share in the ann with their uncle? As a matter of law, we would be inclined to think not, as ann is, like the legitim fund, the special creation of the law; but it would be interesting to know if the question has ever come up in practice, and how it was settled.

The history of ann is a remarkable illustration of the conservatism of lawyers and churchmen, for the law which for two centuries has been administered for the benefit of Presbyterian clergymen's widows originated in a provision for the next of kin of militant bishops of the pre-Reformation church, and rests to some extent on supposed provisions for the widows of King James's very extraordinary post-Reformation prelates.

Current Note.

CROWN SUITS IN THE INFERIOR COURTS.-The decision of the whole Court in Somerville v. The Lord Advocate, 20th July, 1893, 30 S.L.R. 868, is of special interest to Sheriff Court practitioners. It was held (dissenting Lords Young and Kincairney) that the Crown is not subject to the jurisdiction of any inferior Court and can only be sued in the Court of Session. The result is that no Government department can be convened in the Sheriff Court. We gladly call attention to a criticism of this decision by Mr. J. M. Irvine in the current Juridical Review (vol. v. p. 368), in which it is shewn that the result is due to worn-out and absurd ideas of the Royal prerogative, worthy only of the Stuarts and the Star Chamber. The Court were obliged to go for authority to such antiquated text-books as Blackstone's Commentaries and Balfour's Practicks, and ignored the only clear modern authority-that of Bruce v. Veitch, 28th Nov., 1810, Fac. Coll. To quote from Mr. Irvine, "Let us suppose that the "Board of Works enter into a contract with a local tradesman "for the execution of some small repairs in Crown property in a provincial town, e.g., the local prison. A dispute arises, and the "contractor is of opinion that he has a cause of action against the "Crown. If the value in dispute happen to be less than £25, "what remedy has the subject? In virtue of the decision in

'

"Somerville, he cannot appeal to the Sheriff Court; and since the I value of his claim is less than £25, it is, by express statutory provision, incompetent for him to bring his action in the Court "of Session." But, apart from this technicality, what valid reason can be put forward for subjecting the tradesman to the expense and practical inconvenience of proceedings in the Court of Session to recover a trifling sum? Where the executive government enters into a contract with a subject of the Crown, is there any good reason why it should not be bound to answer before the same tribunals as if the contract had been made between two private persons? We agree with Mr. Irvine that, "assuming "the law laid down in Somerville's case to be sound, it seems to "call for remedial legislation."

Literature.

A HANDBOOK OF PRESCRIPTION ACCORDING TO the Law of Scotland. By J. H. Millar, Advocate. Edinburgh: William Green & Sons. 1893. (12s.)

Without admitting that there is any audible demand for a treatise on this chapter of Scots law, we welcome Mr. Millar's business-like little volume as a useful guide and compendium. Avowedly it is based upon the well-known (by name at least) Commentaries on the Law of Prescription, issued in 1839 and completed in 1854 by Sheriff Napier, and, beyond a statement in his preface that the Sheriff is diffuse, and that many cases on the subject have been decided since that publication, Mr. Millar does not account for his appearance in print. However, it seems now to be admitted that digests in continuous diction are to have their place on a lawyer's book-shelves, alongside of those books to which the name is commonly applied, and when the compilation is well done, as here, there can be no objection to them.

Mr. Millar's chapters are headed with the references to Stair, Erskine, and Bell, and most of them begin with the text of the statute to be commented on, while his pages are garnished with a sufficiency of decided cases in foot-notes. Starting, like his predecessor, with a disquisition on the long prescription, he treats of it in ten chapters as Positive and Negative; and, in a second part, of eight chapters' length, he deals with the shorter prescriptions and the place of international law as bearing on the subject. Handling his material firmly, he gives, in less than 200 pages, a review of the principles and leading cases as clear and concise as one could wish for, and when occasion arises he does not hesitate to express a sturdy dissent from the opinions of judges and authors to which average men would bow the head in silence. There is something more than the usual respectful doubt in his analysis of the case of Clyne v. Snody-only some sixty years old-when he says it is "the best conceivable illus"tration of how not to deal with the plea of prescription. The Court, it is submitted, went wrong on every point where error was possible."

When it is added that the paper and printing are excellent, enough has been said to commend to the profession an admirable little piece of work.

A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF LEASES IN SCOTLAND. By John Rankine, M.A., LL.D., Advocate, Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh. Second edition. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute. 1893. (32s.)

We notice this handsome volume at rather greater length than usual with second editions both because of its importance to the profession and because we did not review the treatise on its first appearance. The lapse of time since the first edition, in 1887, renders unnecessary any commendation of the second as of an unknown work; indeed, the fact that a not inexpensive book has reached this stage in so short a time as six years is, considering that it is bought by the hardest-headed of a hard-headed nation, as strong proof of its merits as could be wished for. Good as was the first edition, the second betters it in every way, even in appearance, having a larger page and larger type. Setting the type anew, with the added matter, has increased the volume by 50 pages, making it now one of nearly 790 pp.

Originally a well-planned treatise, it has not required much rearrangement besides the addition of such matter as Parliament and the Court have thrown up since 1887. Further experience of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and of the Crofters Act, which was fresh in the statute book when Mr. Rankine first went to press, has made a proper estimate of their value more certain. The former important Act has happily been left to do its beneficent work without tinkering; and, with aid from Mr. Rankine and others, whose commentaries on the statute he mentions with approval, and especially from the judgments of the Sheriff's which may be found in our pages of reports, its provisions need occasion no difficulty in practice. We note that full citation has been made of our collection of cases under the Act. The chapter on the Crofters Act, 1886, and its pendicles, the amending Act of 1887 and the Grazings Regulation Act of 1891, has been considerably increased by the accumulation of case law. The Allotments Act and Small Holdings Act have been worked into the chapters on Parties to a Lease. As a matter of course with Mr. Rankine, he has included in his notes throughout the work and his addenda the latest decisions.

One is sorry to think that the treatises of Bell and Hunter on leases must now be looked on as shelved, and the philosophical style of the one and the erudite treatment of the other must pass with the generations in which their successive editions saw the light. Bowing, however, to the law of the survival of the fittest, we are much indebted to Professor Rankine for his catching and impaling in the plain view of the reader those points in the decisions which are distinctive and valuable-a style which is more in favour with the legal handicraftsman of to-day. Always reliable, omitting naught that is useful in practice,

furnished with a full index, and brought down to date in this edition, what better book can the profession want on the subject for every-day use in chambers and Court?

THE COURT OF SESSION AND SHERIFF COURT ANNUAL, 1893-94.

Edinburgh James Skinner & Co. (68.)

:

This is an admirable lawyer's compendium, giving a mass of information in constant requisition in a lawyer's office. It is brought down to date, and includes all the Acts of the past session relating to Scotland, the new Act of Sederunt anent examinations of law agents, the new rules of procedure in appeals to the House of Lords, and other matter of interest to the profession. We can cordially recommend it as a convenient and well-arranged handbook.

Obituary.

At Las Palmas, Argentine Republic, South America, on 1st October, of apoplexy, Mr. Thomas Dalgleish, S.S.C. (Dalgleish, Gray, & Dobbie, W.S.), Edinburgh and Dalkeith. The second son of the late Thomas Dalgleish, at one time provost of Selkirk, Mr. Dalgleish, having served an apprenticeship with the late firm of Messrs. Lang & Alexander, solicitors in that town, entered the office of Messrs. Horne, Horne, & Lyell, W.S., Edinburgh, into which firm he was assumed a partner at the early age of twenty-five. From 1885 until January last he carried on business on his own account, when Mr. Alexander Stewart Gray, W.S., and Mr. Joseph Dobbie, S.S.C., were assumed into the business. In 1891 Mr. Dalgleish had a severe attack of influenza, from the effects of which he never fully recovered.

At Aberdeen, on 8th October, Mr. Alexander Yeats, depute town clerk, in his 61st year. Mr. Yeats was one of the best known men in the town and county of Aberdeen. He was a native of Aberdeen, graduated at Aberdeen University, and in 1860 was admitted a member of the Society of Advocates. He gained the repute of a painstaking and successful lawyer, and enjoyed a considerable practice. In 1883 a vacancy occurred in the office of town clerk depute, and the town council elected Mr. Yeats to the position. During the time he held this onerous position much work of an important character had to be performed in connection particularly with improvement and

extension schemes.

At Glasgow, on 21st October, Mr. John Breeze, writer, in his 41st year. Mr. Breeze, who was born in South America, was educated in Glasgow, and, after having finished his university course, was apprenticed to Dr. Murray, of the firm of Maclay, Murray, & Spens. In 1888 he commenced practice on his own account, and some months before his death he entered into partnership with Mr. Archibald Paterson-the business being carried on under the firm of Breeze & Paterson. Mr. Breeze