whether extradition could be granted for a homicide which assuming the facts to be as alleged, was murder according to the law of the place, but would not be murder by the law of Upper Canada. Great excitement ensued in England upon this decision, and an application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster, as here reported The writ of habeas corpus issued, but a practical difficulty arose (see Annual Register for 1861, at p. 527). The shortest route from Toronto at any time, and the only one open in winter, was through the United States, and it was not to be supposed that, once within that jurisdiction, Anderson could escape arrest. Anderson's advisers accordingly tried their fortune with the Upper Canadian Court of Common Pleas, see 11 Upp. Can. C. P. 9. Here, after elaborate argument, the prisoner was discharged, mainly on the ground that the warrant was defective for not expressly describing the offence as murder. Probably no one concerned had begun to suspect that the events already in progress beyond the frontier would within a few years have made the recurrence of such a question impossible. Lincoln's proclamation was not yet in sight. Bromley v. Smith, p. 286, was decided under the old law by which any dealing with a reversionary interest could be set aside merely for undervalue; but, inasmuch as that was not the only ground, the decision is not obsolete. In Myers v. Sarl, pp. 710, 718, Blackburn, J. made some profitable observations on the addition of terms to commercial contracts by proof of usage. We expressed regret in a recent preface (to 120 R. R.) that the Mirror of Justices, with the aid of that most uncritical antiquary Coke, imposed on the Court of Exchequer in 1860: it is pleasing to find that Lord Justice Mellish already knew better when he was a junior, see at p. 628 of this volume. But we do not know what he meant by the suggestion that it was a treatise on the laws of the Saxons; the supposed exploits of King Alfred in putting down unjust judges are certainly there, but this is the most grotesquely fabulous part of the work. A genuine irteenth-century book is before the Court in R. v. White, p. 635, where Britton's exposition of the Coroner's office considered. Ashworth v. Stanwix, p. 906, is noticeable sa rather early example of a refusal to extend the rule of common employment" beyond the reasons, such as they ere, by which it was justified. If an employer chooses to ay the workman, his partner cannot escape liability for is negligence by saying that he was a servant for the ime being. Bradbury v. Dickens, p. 311, is not a case of great legal aportance, but in this year of Charles Dickens's centenary must not be passed over as a document in the history of terature. F. P. LORD CAMPBELL, 1850-1859 SIR ALEXANDER J. E. COCKBURN, 1859- Chief Justices. 1880. SIR JOHN T. COLERIDGE, 1835-1858 Judges. |