THE MAN WHO IS NOT THE CHAUFFEUR.

The Central Law Journal (St. Louis) of March 7th has a good article by Mr. C. P. Perry on "Rights and Duties of Occupant of Automobile other than Driver." His conclusions are:

(a) Not Chargeable with Negligence of Driver"It is the law in nearly all of the States that an occupant of an automobile who has no right of control over the driver and exercises no control of him is not chargeable with the negligence of such driver."

(b) Members of the same Family.-This fact does not affect the rule that the driver's negligence is not imputable to the occupant.

(c) Machine under Control of Occupant. "If the occupant has the right of control over the operation of the automobile and permits it to be negligently driven he is chargeable with his negligent failure to exercise his right to require the driver to properly operate the car."

(d) Care Required of Occupant. "It is no less his duty, when he has the opportunity, than it is of the driver to discover and avoid danger; and if he voluntarily goes into a patent danger that he could reasonably avoid he cannot recover for resulting injuries."

(e) Intoxicated or Careless Driver.-"It may be incumbent upon a passenger or guest in the exercise of ordinary care to refuse to ride with a driver who is intoxicated or who is known to be negligent or incompetent."

(f) Liability of Operator to Guest.-"The duty of the operator to the occupant (including a guest) is to exercise reasonable care not to unnecessarily expose

the occupant to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of that method of travel." "A person thus invited to ride stands in the same situation as a bare licensee who enters upon real property which the licensor is under no obligation to make safe or keep so, but who is liable only for active negligence.' (Patnode v. Foote, 153 App. Div. N. Y. 494).

NEW BOOKS

A Short Treatise on Canadian Constitutional Law, by A. H. F. Lefroy. With an Historical Introduction by W. P. M. Kennedy, Department of Modern History, University of Toronto. Toronto: The Carswell Company, Limited; London: Sweet & Maxwell, Limited, 1918.

Professor Lefroy appropriately dedicates this admirable volume to his gallant son, Lieut. Frazer Keith Lefroy, who fell at Vimy Ridge.

The date of its completion, 1st July, 1918, shows that in the dark days of the first half of 1918 the author did not despair of the Commonwealth. According to Sir Douglas Haig's historic despatch "the situation was an anxious one," but "the definite collapse of the ambitious offence launched by the enemy on the 15th July, and the striking success of the allied counter offensive south of the Aisne, effected a complete change in the whole military situation."

And now, in the confident hope that the victory achieved by the Allies will be followed by a just peace, we may continue the study of Canadian Constitutional Law. It was a happy idea to secure an historical introduction by Professor W. P. M. Kennedy, as to which space will permit only one observation, namely, that in dealing with the interesting and instructive history of our Constitution, Professor Kennedy shows a truer sense of proportion than most writers on the subject.

In addition to an unusually full and accurate Table of Contents, Professor Lefroy has stated 27 "Leading General Propositions" which are useful in giving a preliminary view of the results of the more important decisions upon the British North America Act. These propositions are not claimed to give a complete view, but so far as they go are very carefully stated, and for the most part are founded on judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

After giving a brief account of the formation of the Dominion of Canada, Professor Lefroy states that his treatise "will be mainly concerned with the provisions and interpretations of the British North America Act, 1867, especially with those portions of it which distribute legislative power over the internal affairs of the Dominion between the Federal or Dominion Parliament, on the one hand, and the various provincial legislatures on the other." The book, however, contains an account of the paramount authority (in theory) of the Imperial Parliament and of the introduction of English law into Canada, and Professor Lefroy does well to state on page 40: "But it must always be remembered that those great constitutional documents which comprise almost the whole of the written portion of the Constitution of Great Britain -Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement-are equally included in Canada's Constitution, while as to the unwritten part of the Constitution, those legal decisions which embody the common law Constitution of Great Britain are equally authoritative in Canada, and we may say of both the Dominion and provincial governments that that great body of unwritten conventions, usages, and understandings which have in the course of time grown up in the practical working of the English Constitution and which are so admirably dealt with in Dicey's 'Law of the Constitution,' form as important a part of the political system of Canada as the fundamental law itself which governs the federation."

The sections dealing with the Crown in Canada are specially satisfactory, showing sound scholarship and careful research. Indeed, it may be said all sources of information as to the development of our Constitution have been studied by Professor Lefroy, so that his claim that he had the ideal throughout of completing his task "absolutely without regard to the trouble involved" has been fully substantiated.

Before dealing with specific legislative powers of the Dominions and provinces there is a discussion of the general principles of interpretation and the text concludes with some useful general remarks.

Then follow 118 pages of elaborate notes giving a vast amount of information and many references. The professional reader does not need to be warned that the quotations in these notes vary in authority, in fact many are from arguments of counsel which are not authoritative at all. There are many statements of judges made in the course of argument and not binding on any one. Edward Blake delivered many powerful arguments before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from which there are several quotations, but it must be borne in mind that it is only the final decision in each case that is binding. Moreover, judges often ask questions and even make statements, during the argument of cases, for the purpose of drawing out counsel. If read with this in view many of these quotations are interesting and useful. If read without bearing this in mind some of these quotations may be very misleading.

The index, while not very full, is accurate. Though I have tested many of the citations I found no mistake, but, on the contrary, a precision much to be commended in these days of haste and hurry. The book is well printed.

The review in the "Times' Literary Supplement" of Professor Kennedy's "Documents of the Canadian Constitution" contains the pregnant statement: "It will not be the fault of Canadians and lovers of Canada if the history of the Dominion is not better known than that of any other land and people. It is a most attractive and on the constitutional side-to use a term much in vogue to-day-essentially a pivotal history; for in Canada the modern self-governing Dominion has been evolved, and the stages in the evolution are most clearly marked and unmistakable."