between them, which led not only to considerable literary intercourse, but also to cordial social relations. Mr. Maidment's first publication goes back for at least fifty, if not nearly sixty, years, and throughout his whole life he was continually adding to the stores of antiquarian literature, until at last his name may be said to have become associated with as long a list of publications of that description as any in Europe. He was an intimate friend of the late Mr. Riddell, the most profound of all genealogical antiquarians, and after his death he certainly took the position of being the first advocate in Scotland in cases involving genealogical inquiries. Mr. Maidment as a peerage lawyer had only one equal. He published in 1840 Reports of Claims preferred to the House of Lords in the Cases of Cassilis, Sutherland, Spynie, and Glencairn Peerages.' At a later period he took a specially prominent position in the Mar Peerage case, and his paper in connection with it ably pleaded the claim of Mr. Goodeve Erskine. His opinions on general legal cases were also regarded as sound, but his rhetoric was by no means equal to his diction. In the days when written pleadings were more frequent than now in the Court of Session, those which came from the pen of Mr. Maidment bore evidence to the great ability of their author.

"Amongst Mr. Maidment's literary efforts in more recent years may be mentioned 'The Dramatists of the Restoration,' which was edited by him for our townsman, Mr. Paterson, with the assistance of Mr. W. H. Logan. The work extended to no fewer than fourteen volumes octavo. He also edited 'Scottish Ballads,' illustrative of the history of Scotland, a work in two volumes, which was published in 1868; A Book of Scotch Pasquils,' published in 1869; and a Packet of Pestilent Pasquils,' issued in the same year. At an earlier period he contributed to Thomson's 'Border Miscellany,' a periodical edited by his friend Mr. Logan, then in Berwick-onTweed; edited the Roxburghe Revels' and other relative papers, including answers to the attack on the memory of the late Joseph Haslewood, F.S.A., with specimens of his literary productions, and was the author or editor of many other publications, including comments on his own genealogical collection. For almost all of these a price is now paid at least threefold that at which they could at one time be bought, and even then the works were of an expensive character. With tastes such as Mr. Maidment possessed he was an extensive collector as well as author, and his large and spacious house in Royal Circus is filled with books and prints of the most curious and recherché character.

"The deceased gentleman was latterly engaged in preparing for the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres an account of his genealogical collections, one of the most extensive in the kingdom. He had further on hand the Duffus Peerage case, to which he was devoting himself for a claimant in England.

"Although Mr. Maidment had reached the advanced age of eighty

six or eighty-seven, his memory continued unimpaired to the last. The recollection he had of events that took place during his prolonged life, together with the most minute of his literary, antiquarian, and other investigations, struck with amazement all who had intercourse with him. His intellect was perfectly clear, and every quality that went to constitute a man of distinguished parts continued in the most unclouded condition. Though he had latterly to contend with the deficiency of impaired sight, brought on, it is supposed, by his deciphering of old parchments, he continued an ardent reader. He was much affected by the loss of a promising daughter several years ago, and from that time was confined to the house. A kind-hearted and amiable gentleman, he peacefully, as he had lived, slept away on the evening of the 26th October.

"The wife of Mr. Maidment died in 1862. He is survived by a son."

J. F. RODGER, Esq., S.S.C.-We regret to announce the death of the above gentleman at the age of fifty-six. A native of Arbroath, he came to Edinburgh in 1846, and entered the office of Messrs. Maclachlan & Ivory, W.S., in which firm he was assumed as a partner ten years later. He eventually became a member of the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts, and was frequently an office-bearer in that body. Besides being an energetic and acute lawyer, he possessed considerable literary and musical taste, which rendered him deservedly popular among a large circle of

friends.

P. S. BANKS, Esq., S.S.C.-A well-known and universally respected official of the Court of Session has recently passed away in the person of the above gentleman. For about forty years he had acted as clerk to the present Lord Justice-General, first when he was at the Bar as Mr. Inglis, and afterwards on his being raised to the Bench. When Mr. Inglis took his seat as Lord Justice-Clerk in 1858, Mr. Banks, as usual in such cases, was appointed Keeper of the Rolls of the Second Division, and when in 1869 the Lord Justice-Clerk assumed the Presidency of the Court, similar duties devolved upon Mr. Banks in the First Division. His official duties brought him into contact with almost all the practitioners in the Court of Session, and by all he was esteemed in a very high degree from the courtesy with which he performed his duties, and the sterling integrity of his character.

The death is announced of W. SCOTT STEUART, Esq., S.S.C. (1849.)

GEORGE CHRISTISON ADAMS, Esq., S.S.C. (1851), Official Searcher of Records in her Majesty's General Register House, died on the 20th October.

604

The Month.

Popular Law-Reporting.-In reference to an article which appeared in our August number on this subject, we notice that an action has been raised in the Court of Session by Robert Richardson, a Sheriff's officer, against the publisher of the Edinburgh Evening News for £500. In July last a paragraph appeared in the paper in question announcing that a certain summons had been called in Court, which it is alleged contained certain slanderous statements concerning the pursuer. The summons, however, it

may be remarked, was not called against Richardson, but against another defender altogether. The case being as yet sub judice, we cannot comment on it, but the following proceedings occurred at the adjustment of an issue, in order to have the case tried by a jury:

"Counsel for the defender contended at great length that he was entitled to publish a summons, seeing that it was a public document, the moment it was called in Court. On the other hand, the pursuer maintained that a summons when called was not a public document, and that the newspapers were not entitled to publish it.

"At the close of the debate, Lord Craighill said that hardly anything more important could be brought before the Court than this question. There was no doubt that the proceedings of a court of justice, according to the policy of the law, ought to be the property of the world. The public were quite entitled to be present, and any member of the public was entitled to communicate, if he did so honestly and fairly, what transpired. At the same time, if that doctrine were to be carried to the length to which counsel for the defender put it, a very great injustice would be done to one of the parties in the litigation. There were many strictly technical and judicial steps that were taken before the stage was reached at which a case could be said to be before the Court and fit to be published to the world. Besides, the public had no interest to be informed before the proper time that a case was depending. A summons might be abandoned before it was called, or after it was called and before it was enrolled; and in several ways, which his Lordship pointed out, might be as completely terminated as if a judgment had been taken upon it. If the summons was to be made a public document before it was in a reasonable sense before the Court, the same ought to be done with the documents in the process. He could not, however, think that there was any policy of law in which this doctrine had been recognised. He thought that the rights of parties in this matter had been definitely settled by the Act of Sederunt of 11th March 1820, which authorized that summonses, etc., should be lodged with the depute-clerk; and these, with productions, were to be entered in the list for calling,

and thereafter they were not to be given up by the clerk, except when borrowed by the agent on his receipt, or when transmitted to some other officials of the Court. Now in this case the summons had been called. Up to this time it was quite apparent that not only was there no right on the part of a stranger to become acquainted with the summons, but there was express enactment that the Clerk of Court should not thereafter give it up except when borrowed by an agent. Then, in article second in this Act of Sederunt, callings by depute-clerks were not only to be performed viva voce, but by the exhibition of the lists. Here was the provision for publicity, and it was not what was contained in the summons, but what was set forth in the lists, that was to be published. His Lordship said he was willing to allow an issue."

Circumstantial Evidence.-In the old days, when "Apprentices of the Law" posed each other with difficult legal dilemmas in the Halls of the Inns of Court, such a case of circumstantial evidence as that just reported from Vienna would have afforded rare opportunities for legal hairsplitting. In July last year an unmarried seamstress named Leopoldine Haensel happened to be in confidential conversation with a female friend named Juliane Halkiewicz. To her Leopoldine imparted all her troubles, including the fact that she had a lover, and that she expected shortly to become a mother. She produced a bottle containing some liqueur, which, she said, "he," meaning her paramour, had given her, and, pouring out a glassful, she offered it to her friend. Juliane Halkiewicz, however, only just put her lips to the liquid, and declined to drink it, on the ground that it had a disagreeable odour; whereupon Leopoldine drank off the remainder of the contents of the bottle at one draught. She complained immediately afterwards that it had a strange taste, adding that she had drunk some of it two days before, and that it was then good. In the course of a few minutes she became unconscious, and died in her friend's arms. Looking at the fact that she had offered Juliane a glass of the liqueur, the police refused to adopt the theory of suicide, and began to search for the lover, of whom all they knew was that his Christian name was Leopold, that he was married, but childless, and that he worked as a journeyman tailor in a certain establishment. Acting on these indications they arrested one Leopold Winkeler, who exhibited great trepidation, but at the same time denied all knowledge of the deceased. A number of witnesses were, however, called to prove that Leopold Winkeler had repeatedly visited Leopoldine Haensel, and two neighbours of the latter deposed that a few hours before the poisoning he had been alone in the room of the deceased, while she had been absent to fetch some water and a bottle of wine. The theory of the prosecution was that Winkeler placed the poison in the liqueur-bottle during his mistress's absence. He tried, but unsuccessfully, to prove an alibi; and was, by a majority of eight

to four, found guilty. The man has been sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against him is certainly very strong; but would it suffice completely to satisfy an English judge and jury as to his guilt?

POMPONIUS, a celebrated law teacher of Rome in the sixth century, entered into a contract with a Roman citizen to instruct his son in the law. This was the contract: So many coins if the pupil became learned in the law, the test to be that he should win his first case before the tribunal. Pomponius turned over his pupil as perfected in his studies. The father brought suit against the master to set aside the contract, and retained his son to plead this his first case. "If my son gains his case the contract is made void. If he loses I am not bound." Pomponius answers: "If I fail in my defence the son wins his case, and I am entitled to my money. If I gain, the Court gives me the money by its decree." Which side had the law?

Dinner to Sheriff Barclay.-A dinner was given last month at Perth to this universally esteemed gentleman and popular judge, on the occasion of his completing his fiftieth year of service as a Sheriff-Substitute. A large and distinguished party assembled to do honour to the occasion, and the whole proceedings were of the most gratifying character. Since the first publication of this Journal, now twenty-three years ago, Sheriff Barclay has been a constant and valued contributor to its pages, and we may be allowed to express a wish that the learned and venerable Sheriff may still be spared for many years to perform the duties of his office with that satisfaction to all which he has ever displayed in their discharge.

MR. DAVID S. SHIRESS has been appointed to the vacancy in the Clerkship of the Court of Session caused by the death of Mr. Macritchie.

MR. GEORGE C. BANKS has been appointed Keeper of the Rolls of the First Division in room of his late father.

The Scottish Law Magazine and Sheriff Court Reporter.

SHERIFF COURT OF MIDLOTHIAN.

Sheriff HALLARD.

STORIE v. FORBES AND ROBERTSON.

School Board Election-Right of clerk to returning officer to vote.-The interlocutor explains the circumstances of the case :

"Edinburgh, 4th June 1879.-The Sheriff-Substitute having heard parties' procurators on the closed record, Finds that the returning officer in the