OFFICE: 114, CHANCERY LA., LONDON, W.C. 2

KAIN'S SYSTEM OF SOLICITORS'

BOOK-KEEPING AND COSTS.

Twelfth Edition, Explanatory Treatise by HENRY BROWN, F.C.A., gives full explanations and specimen entries of all Books of Account.

This treatise brings Solicitors' Book-keeping up to date, particular attention being paid to separating office and clients' moneys, and the advantage of drawing only on realised profits. Price 5s. net.

All Account and Costs Books on Kain's Copyright System (first and second quality), also special books with extra columns, &c., may be obtained of us. Our 2A Cash Journal is ruled for keeping clients' moneys distinct from office moneys.

SPECIAL NOTICE.-We have no connection whatever with any firm or firms who purport to sell our books, and adopters of "Kain's System should be careful to deal direct with us or our publishers, Waterlow Brothers and Layton, and see that the name of "Kain" as well as our name appears on the title page of every book. Price list, specimen sheets, and every information relating to the books are suplied by us free of charge. We have on our Register gentlemen with capital desirous of purchasing practices or partnerships. KAIN, BROWN, BENNETT, & CLARK, 59, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, W.0. 2.

SATURDAY, JAN. 18, 1919.

Telephone, Regent 273.

GENERAL REVERSIONARY

AND

INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED. Established 1836, and empowered by Special Act of Parliament.

REVERSIONS AND LIFE INTERESTS PURCHASED

OR LOANS GRANTED THEREON. Loans on Reversions, either at Annual Interest of for Deferred Charges, payable when the Reversions mature, and free of interest in the meantime.

Apply to the ACTUARY, 26, PALL MALL, 8.W. 1. Original Society.

THE

which has been in existence for

a period of upwards of Seventy
Years for the transaction of

FIDELITY INSURANCE,

is enabled to place at the disposal of
the Legal Profession and the Public
generally the advantages of its
unrivalled experience in this class
of business.

COURT BONDS

A

SPECIALITY.

INDEMNITIES ISSUED IN RESPECT OF LOST OR MISSING DOCUMENIS, &C. Office: 19, BIRCHIN LANE, LONDON, E.C. 3. Telephone: 814 Central.

Re CHARLES ARTHUR CLULOW, deceased. Pursuant to the Act of Parliament, 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35, intituled "An Act to further amend the Law of Property and to relieve Trustees."

TOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that all

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that all

of CHARLES ARTHUR CLULOW, late of 2, 3, and 4, Billiter-avenue, in the City of London, Solicitor, deceased, who died on the 22nd day of October, 1918, and whose Will was proved in the Principal Registry on the 4th day of January, 1919, by Mabel Rye, Arthur Lockyer Rye, and Joseph William Mounteney Holmes, the Executors of the said Will, are hereby required to send the particulars, in writing, of their claims or demands to us the undersigned on or before the 1st day of April, 1919, after which date the said Executors will distribute the assets of the said deceased. Dated this 13th day of January, 1919. (Signed) RYE and EVRE, 13, Golden-square, London, W. 1., Solicitors for the said Executors.

PROBA

ROBATE VALUATIONS GUARANTEED. - Messrs. TOOTH and TOOTH (late Oxenhams), 187 and 189, Oxford-street, W., undertake VALUATIONS of FURNITURE and other effects on mcderate terms, and, if desired will purchase for cash at the sum awarded by them

HELMORE on KAIN'S SYSTEM of

SOLICITORS' BOOK-KEEPING.

All Accounts and Costs Books, with Short and Concise Explanatory Treatise (by the late Mr. Percy Helmore, Chartered Accountant) on the system, can be obtained

of:

Messrs. HELMORE & HELMORE,

88, CHANCERY-LANE, LONDON, W.C. 2.
Telephone: 4879 Holborn.

By arrangement Auctions in town or country can also be held on other days. Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, and Chinnocks undertake Sales and Valuations for Probate and other purposes of Furniture, Pictures, Farming Stock, Timber, &c.

A list is published monthly of Business Premises, Offices, and Building Sites. A Register is also kept of Estates, Town and Country Residences, Hunting and Shooting Quarters, and Investments.-Full particulars on application to Messrs. Debenham, Tewson, and Chinnocks, No. 80, Cheapside, E.C. 2, and 29, St. James's-square, 8.W. 1. Telephones, City 7611 (3 lines) and Gerrard 8765.

Money, Wanted and to Lend.

MUTUAL LOAN FUND ASSOCIATION

LIMITED (incorporated 1850), 5. Lancaster-place, Waterloo Bridge, Strand, W.C. 2; 38, Ship-st., Brighton; 199, Queen's-road, Hastings; and 31, Walbrook, E.C. 4; ADVANCES MONEY upon personal security, shares, deeds, &c., repayable by instalments. Bills promptly discounted. Forms free.-C. R. WRIGHT, Secretary.

Offices to be Let.

ROOM in good City office, with use of

Telephone and Typist, WANTED by Chartered Accountant.-Replies, with terms and accommodation care of Messrs. R. F. White and available, to "C. A.,' Son. 33. Flect-street, E.C. 4.

Partnerships, Wanted and Vacant.

MESSRS. HOOPER & SON,

THE PREMIER LAW PARTNERSHIP ACENTS. Established over Half a Century.

Solicitors desirous of acquiring or disposing of Shares or Practices are invited to avail themselves of the advantages of their Register.

LAY AGENTS.

LAW STATIONERS, Printers, Lithographers, Account Book Makers, Parchment Dealers, &c. High-class Stationery at lowest rice

HOOPER & SON, 14, DISTAFF LA., CANNON ST. E.C. 4 Tel.-7855 CENTRAL. Tel.-"HOOPER," CENT., LONDON

ARTNERSHIP or SUCCESSION RE

Oxon.), Solicitor, assisted by an able staff, PREPARES STUDENTS for

SOLICITORS', BAR, and LONDON UNIVERSITY INTERMEDIATE and LL.B. EXAMINATIONS by means of small oral classes and by post. Write or call for prospectus:

3, PLOWDEN BUILDINGS, TEMPLE, E.C. 4.

SOL

awarded Military Cross), with exceptional allround experience, DESIRES SALARIED PARTNERSHIP (£400 per annum); own connection, nucleus of old Family practice.-Apply "Worker" (No. 3954), "Law Times Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

OPENI

REGENT

STREET, W. 1.
Special classes in
PUBLIC SPEAKING
(Voice Training and Delivery)

for Clergymen, Barristers, Lecturers, &c., have been arranged as follows:

Men only-Wednesday, 12 o'clock midday.
Women only-Wednesday, 3 p.m.
Men and women-Friday, 7 p.m.
New Term now commencing.
Fee for 12 weeks course, 218.
apply to Director of Education.

For particulars AMANAGING
OFFICER, wide experience

3954),

practising London Solicitor and Advocate (seventeen years), South African Attorney (ten years), PREPARES PUPILS for Intermediate and Final Examinations Solicitors', Bar, and LL.B. Lond.; small, Marlborough-street, W.

"

experience, mobilised Aug. 4, 1914, demobilised soon, WANTS SUCCESSION or PARTNERSHIP; preferably growing town, about two hours from London." A. D. 8." (No. 3955), "Law Times Office, Bream's-buildings, E.Č. 4. NOLICITOR (30), Flying Officer, R.A.F.,

experience, DESIRES PARTNERSHIP in or SUCCESSION to London practice; capital available."H. E. R." (No. 3955), "Law Times " Office, Bream'sbuildings, E.C. 4.

CLERK (Common Law and Chancery), DESIRFS EMPLOYMENT; Solicitors,

for leave; first-class references.Address 1. B. (No.

A.

3955), "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4. LAW in AW.-SOLICITOR (37), several years in MANAGING CLERKSHIP or other reponsible position (with or without view to Partnership or Succession) in preference to working up home practice again; fully experienced all branches; good Advocate.-H. G." (No. 3955), "Law Times Office, Bream's-buildings,

SOLICITOR (admitted), 34, DESIRES RE-ENGAGEMENT after demobilisation; nine years' London experience as managing clerk, first in First-class Honours, Scott Scholar, Mackrell Prizeman, Broderip Medallist; would prefer post with Partnership prospect or appointment with commercial company, municipal council, or Government Department.Office, T. B. J." (No. 3954), Law Times" Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4. AW.-ACCOUNTANT and CASHIER,

LAW, ACCOUNTANT and CASHIER,

Admiralty practice, &c.) and London office, wishes POST in large, busy office; initiative; two and threequarter years' naval service." Bar" (No. 3954), "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

"

APPOINT

AW. CASHIER-ACCOUNTANT and COSTS CLERK (33) DESIRES MENT with London or provincial firm of standing; exceptional experience in Costs (including taxations), Trust Accounts, Income Tax practice, &c.; highest references." R. G. H." (Box 3954), "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

with view to

PARTNER REQUIRED to old-established Conveyancing

N."

and Family PRACTICE in South-west of England; applicants please state qualifications."H. (No. 3955), "Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

Thoroughly

experienced GENERAL CLERK SEEKS permanent POSITION on demobilisation; age 34; fourteen years in large country office, last two and a half years in Army clerical position; exceptional qualifications in Accountancy and Financial business, Conveyancing, Probate, Company formations, Bankruptcy, building and general estate management and development; accustomed to act in important matters with nominal supervision; expert shorthand-typist; minimum salary, country £200, London £250.-A. ROOKE, 34, Chesnut-road, Plumstead, S.E. 18.

LAW

E.C. 4.

AW.-COSTS and INSURANCE CLERK WANTED for suburban office, S.W. district.State age and particulars (including war service, if any) and salary required to Box 1551, care of Messrs. R. F. White and Son, 33, Fleet-street, E.C. 4. AW. ENGROSSING CLERK WANTED for suburban office, S.W. district. State age and particulars (including war service, if any) and salary required to Box 1553, care of Messrs. P. F. White and Son, 33, Fleet-street, E.C. 4.

LAW-City Office REQUIRES MANAG

ING CLERK (unadmitted man preferred) with general experience, particularly Conveyancing, Probate, and Company work; salary £300 to £400.-Apply, stating age and particulars of experience, to "S. E. 8. (No. 3955), "Law Times "Office, Bream's-buildings, E.O. 4.

LA

AW.-CONVEYANCING MANAGING CLERK (admitted or not) REQUIRED; good experience essential; building society work; salary about £400, according to qualifications.-Please apply, by letter only, to T.," care of Jarvis, 12, Norfolk-street, Strand, London, W.C. 2.

LAW

CONVEYANCING CLERK WANTED in London; must have practical knowledge Conveyancing, Trust, Probate, and Inland Revenue macters, and willing to work under slight supervision; good opportunity for advancement of ccmpetent man.-Write "C.,' care of C. J. Walker's Advertisement Agency, 24, Coleman-street, E.C. 2.

AW.-WANTED, at once, in busy West

Also VEYANCING CLERK; Shorthand desirable. JUNIOR BILL CLERK and CASHIER, with know ledge of tithe collection and insurance agency work; AW.-FLYING OFFICER (30), married, Apply Shorthand essential, typewriting desirable. " to West years' experience general stating fullest particulars and salary, practice, King's Bench, Country (No. 3955), "Law Times" Office, Bream'sChancery, and Conveyancing, DESIRES Company, buildings, E.O. 4. APPOINTMENT; London preferred.-Apply "R. S. T." (No. 3955), Law Times" Office, Bream's-buildings, AW.-Good E.C. 4.

TION Solicitor's office; country preferred; ten years' experience, Common Law, Conveyancing, Probate, &c.; served three years in Army, including last two years as corporal in administrative office of a divisional headquarters; good references.-"O. T. C." (No. 3955), "Law Times Office, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

LA service, ten years' Legal experience, DESIRES

as

POST CONVEYANCING CLERK; hard worker, keen student, shorthand writer; country preferred."A. B. C." (No. 3955), "Law Times" Office, Bream'sbuildings, E.C. 4.

Four lines of 30 words or less

than 80 words in body type 4 0 Each additional line (8 words) 1 0

One page

£ s. d. 10 0 0 5 0 0 8 6 8 10 0 No reries

Half page One column Per inch (single col.) Paragraph Advertisements 1s. 6d. per line, minimum 78. 6d. discount. Advertisers whose reference is under initials to this office should remit 1s. additional to defray postage in transmitting replies to their Adver tisements. Advertisements must reach the office not later than 12 o'clock noon on Thursday, and must be accompanied by a remittance. Post-Office Orders payable to the FIELD & QUEEN (HORACE COX) LTD. All communications must be authenticated by the name and address of the writer, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. Anonymous communications are invariably rejected.

All communications intended for the Editorial Department should, in order to prevent delay, be addressed to the "EDITOR OF THE LAW TIMES.'

Any contributions that may be sent on approval will be carefully considered by the Editor; but no responsibility whatever can be accepted in respect thereof, although, if unsuitable, every effort will be made to return them, provided that a stamped addressed wrapper is inclosed for that purpose.

The copyright of all contributions (including reports paid for) shall belong to the proprietors of the LAW TIMES, together with the right of republication in any form they may think desirable. Apart from any express agreement that may be made, contributions are only received and considered on these conditions,

Advertisements. orders for papers, &c., should be kept distinct, and addressed to the Publisher, "Law Times" Office, Windsor House, Bream's-buildings, E.C. 4.

Vol. 146-No 3955

Lord Finlay.

THE retirement of Lord FINLAY will be universally regretted throughout the Profession. A sound lawyer of wide experience and learning, he has worthily upheld the traditions of the Lord Chancellorship during his short term of office.

The New Lord Chancellor.

WHATEVER else may be said of the selection of Sir F. E. SMITH to fill the great office of Lord Chancellor, it cannot be said to have been unexpected. For generations the Attorney-General of the day has by tacit consent had the reversion of the Woolsack. In the past the arrangement has been satisfactory, the principal judicial office being filled by a lawyer whose legal abilities have been of the highest order. We can only express the hope that the new Lord Chancellor may disclose on his elevation a legal aptitude equal to the capacity he has shown in other matters.

The Law Officers.

SIR GORDON HEWART becomes Attorney-General, his career as Solicitor-General having amply proved the wisdom of his selection as a law officer of the Crown. Sir ERNEST POLLOCK is the new Solicitor-General, a choice that will be generally approved. Both his position at the Bar and the valuable work he has done for the country during the war justify the expectation that he will make good in his new office.

The Bar Council Report.

ALTHOUGH the annual general meeting of the Bar was fixed for Friday, the 17th, the annual statement for 1918 of the General Council has only been issued this week. It is quite impossible to understand this delay, as in former years the report has always been issued to members of the Bar before Christmas, and this tardy Second Sheet.

publication prevents any resolution for discussion at the meeting, as seven days' notice has to be given. The postponement of publication is not due to the exigencies of printing, and requires some explanation.

The New Offices.

No satisfactory reason is given why the offices of the council, the rent and rates of which amounted to £61 2s. 6d., should have been moved to the extreme limit of Lincoln's-inn, where a greatly increased rental is being paid. Why in July of last year, in the middle of the war, premises "of a character more suitable to the duties they [the council] are called upon to discharge" should have been necessary passes comprehension. For many years the offices at Hare-court, near the Law Courts, and centrally placed, have been quite adequate, and the removal to their present position, besides causing great inconvenience, is simply waste of money.

Ministry of Justice.

PERHAPS the most important matter referred to in the report relates to the question of the establishment of a Ministry of Justice, the full details of communications with the Law Society and deliberations being contained in a report of a special committee, not printed in the annual statement, but adopted by the council. We shall print the committee's report next week, but the summary of the result of their deliberations is :

The committee recommend to the council that they should intimate to the Law Society

(a) That while concurring in the society's desire for the improvement of the legal system of the country, the council are not prepared to support the constitution of a new and independent Ministry of Justice intended in any way to supersede or interfere with the Lord Chancellor as the responsible head of that system.

(b) That the council are not prepared to support any scheme for the constitution of a National School of Law which would remove students intended for the Bar from the jurisdiction and control of the Inns of Court.

It is impossible to deal with the details of this report without the text being before our readers, but next week we shall comment upon it in the light of Mr. GARRETT's proposals and the report of Lord HALDANE'S Committee.

County Courts.

VARIOUS suggestions have been made by the council to the Lord Chancellor's Committee dealing with the County Courts. These are set out in the report, and no exception can be taken to them, but doubtless they will be incorporated in some general scheme for the improvement of these tribunals. This, however, will have to be considered in the larger scheme of legal reconstruction which will come in the near future.

DOORWAYS AND PRESCRIPTIVE CLAIMS TO LIGHT.

IN holding, as Mr. Justice Peterson did in the recent case of Levet v. Gas Light and Coke Company (ante, p. 23; (1918) W. N. 330), that a prescriptive right to light could not be acquired in respect of a doorway, his Lordship would appear to have followed the general drift of the authorities. The point is not, however, a very clear one, for the principles themselves are anything but easily appreciable. The claim was made in that case to relief for the alleged wrongful interference with the light to windows as well as to two doorways on the ground floor. The learned judge decided that the alleged interference with the light to the windows, except in the case of one smal window or aperture on the ground floor,

was not established. So far as this latter aperture was concerned, the plaintiff succeeded; but the point of interest was his Lordship's decision in relation to the doorways.

The right to light, or rather the right to prevent interference with the enjoyment of light, has been the subject-matter of a great many judicial decisions. The law on the subject has never been on a very satisfactory footing. It is all the less satisfactory by reason of the readjustment, so to speak, which took place when the House of Lords decided the well-known case of Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores (90 L. T. Rep. 687; (1904) A. C. 179). For years there had been a tendency in the courts to wander further and further away from the old conception of the right to light. The courts had gradually reached the stage when the matter of angles, cones of light, and such like things, were treated as of the utmost importance. The old conception of the right to light was that the real question was whether the interference had caused an actionable nuisance. This question was to be decided, from the very nature of things, from the results as felt within the house itself. The more modern tendency was to consider what had happened outside. The decision in Colls' case brought the modern view back to the old principle of nuisance, and now the matter stands, as it did two centuries and more ago, as a question of nuisance or no nuisance-as a question of the effect of the diminution of the light as felt within the house itself.

We need not concern ourselves with the vexed question whether the Prescription Act did or did not destroy all other forms of claim to light by long enjoyment. As Mr. Nicholson Combe points out in his work on the subject (Combe's Law of Light, p. 176), it is probable that it is no longer open to a plaintiff to claim a right to light by reason of enjoyment, except under the Act or by immemorial prescription. The learned author's view has not, it would seem, ever been since questioned. So far as immemorial prescription goes, it is all but impossible nowadays for a plaintiff to succeed on such a claim, for this short reason that buildings can generally be shown to have been first erected long since the year 1189. It is therefore with the provisions of the Act that we are concerned. The right to light by user was dealt with by one short section in the Act. In that section there is no mention of windows, doors, or other apertures. There is nothing to indicate the nature of the opening to which the right is attached beyond this, that the section says that when "the access and use of light to and for any dwelling-house, workshop, or other building, shall have been actually enjoyed," then the right is to be deemed absolute. We need not give the words of this section in full. So far as the words of the Act go, we are left in doubt as to the nature of the apertures through which the light is enjoyed.

The real essence of the right to light is that the servient tenement serves, as it were, the dominant building. It serves it in a negative way. The dominant building enjoys an accommodation from the non-building on the servient tenement. It is, of course, essential that there should be a building to enjoy the light. As has often been pointed out, right to light is not a natural right of property. If a man buys a plot of land he can build a house on it if he likes. He can build the house with windows overlooking his neighbour's land. But if that neighbour thinks fit to build, he can block out the overlooking windows. The first-mentioned party may complain, but he has no cause of action. Compare this with the man who buys a plot of land, and whose neighbour afterwards excavates on his own land and thereby lets down part of the other man's plot.

The loss of support and the consequent damage to the plot gives the owner a right of action. Thus we see the difference between the right of light and the right of support. The right of support may, however, be, like the right of light, acquired by prescription. If support is required for a building, the owner ordinarily must prescribe.

Now, having pointed out that the right to light is not a natural right of property, but one which must be acquired as an easement, it concerns us to examine more fully the nature of the right. As we have seen, it is a right which presupposes the existence of a building. Our next step is to associate with the building the idea of the enjoyment of light. Light to be enjoyed in a building must enter. The means of entry are, of course, windows, sky

lights, and doors. It is by means of these apertures that the house enjoys the light. In the case of a glasshouse, the light is enjoyed through the roof and sides.

At this point we pass to perhaps the hardest part of our subject— namely, the reason why the law charges the servient tenement with the easement. When the claim to the right to light is based on long enjoyment, the reason why the law imposes the easement is apparently the old reason which underlies all prescriptive claimsviz., to quiet title. The servient owner has acquiesced in an adverse enjoyment over his property. Wherefore he is charged by law with the very reasonable supposition that he has acquiesced for some excellent reason. That reason is that he could not rightfully interfere. Applying this to the case of windows, we find that he is charged because he has had full notice of the adverse enjoyment. He must be taken to have known that his neighbour has for years past enjoyed light over his land. In point of fact the reasoning indicated above breaks down somewhat; but that is because of the Act. Twenty years' enjoyment is enough to give a right to light under the Act. Yet, notwithstanding the somewhat artificial state of things set up by the statutory provisions, the basis of the statutory prescription to light is the same as in all other prescriptive claims. User and enjoyment acquiesced in, enures for the benefit of the dominant tenement, and to the prejudice of the servient tenement. Acquiescence, in its nature, presupposes something in the nature of apparency. To acquiesce in an adverse enjoyment, one must be made aware of that enjoyment. Windows are very apparent things. So for that matter are doors, but ordinarily doors are meant as the means of access, not as the means of obtaining light. Acquiescence may be presumed from the mere proximity of a door, which when opened may let in light coming over your own land. But the light enjoyed by the occasional opening of a door could hardly be said to be "actually enjoyed " within the meaning of sect. 3 of the Prescription Act. So much for the theory. Now let us turn to the authorities.

It is quite clear that light may be enjoyed, within the meaning of the Act, through church windows. How far this doctrine can be carried in the case of stained glass windows, used not so much for the purposes of obtaining light as for the purposes of ornament, is not clear. But there are several cases in the books on this subject: See e.g., Ecclesiastical Commissioners v. Kino (42 L. T. Rep. 201; 14 Ch. Div. 213) and Anderson v. Francis (121 L. T. Jour. 292; (1906) W. N. 160). The fact that a place of worship is unconsecrated would not affect the question: (see AttorneyGeneral v. Queen Anne Garden and Mansions Limited, 60 L. T. Rep. 759).

It has been held that light may be claimed prescriptively in respect of a greenhouse. Thus in the case of Clifford v. Holt (80 L. T. Rep. 48; (1899) 1 Ch. 698) Mr. Justice Kekewich granted an injunction protecting the light for such a building. "If it were a studio," said his Lordship, referring to the greenhouse, “either an ordinary studio, or a photographic studio, or a picture gallery, detached from the house, it would be a building.' If it were a conservatory attached to the house, it would be part of a building. It is difficult to say more than that this is a 'building.' It was said by Mr. Justice Chitty in the case of Harris v. De Pinna (54 L. T. Rep. 38; 33 Ch. Div. 238) that a structure like the Crystal Palace would be a building within the Act. In several other cases it has been held that light can be prescriptively claimed for vineries glasshouses, and the like.

considerable number of authorities on that point: (see Combe's Law of Light, p. 191).

In the case of Bullers v. Dickinson (52 L. T. Rep. 400; 39 Ch. Div. 155), Mr. Justice Kay recognised that light might be enjoyed by means of a glazed door. The building in that case was a small one, and it had, no doubt, been very apparent that the light enjoyed within had been enjoyed by means of the glass door. The case cannot, however, be said to be a clear authority on the point that light through a doorway can be the subject-matter of a prescriptive claim.

In the recent case mentioned at the commencement of this article, the door had been kept open apparently from time to time as a means of obtaining light. But apparently there was nothing to lead the court to consider the doorway as being an obvious means of enjoying light. However that may be, the point still remains open whether a doorway partly fitted with glass for the purpose of admitting light could not be regarded as an aperture for light. Upon the whole, one is inclined to take the view that light through a glazed door which when shut admitted the light, and which from outside obviously constituted a means of enjoying light, would be protected by the court, after, of course, the necessary lapse of time.

COMMENTS ON CASES.

Secret Trials.

66

SUBJECT to a general power of the court to exclude the public where the interests of justice require it, it is an axiom of English law that the administration of justice should be open to the whole world. Ten years ago the Legislature introduced in the Incest Act 1908 the anomalous section directing that all proceedings under that Act should be held in camerâ. Considerable interest, therefore, is attached to the statement of Mr. Justice Darling at the Central Criminal Court last week that, after hearing a great many of these cases, he is of opinion that more harm than good had been done by hearing them in camera. The offence is far from uncommon, and the fact that trials and sentences for it are never allowed to be reported leaves most people in ignorance of the statute. Many in the course of proceedings before me," said the learned judge, "have protested that they did not know they had committed a crime." Unless, therefore, there are reasons of great weight against it, people should have the means of knowledge which a trial in open court affords. There are various classes of cases where the interests of justice require the exclusion of the public from the hearing. Examples of such cases are suits affecting wards, lunacy proceedings, and cases involving trade secrets, where secrecy is of the essence of the cause. A recent instance is provided by the case of Rex v. Governor of Lewes Prison; Ex parte Doyle (116 L. T. Rep. 407; (1917) 2 K. B. 254), where a court-martial, sitting in the midst of the Irish rebellion, was held justified in trying a rebel behind closed doors. But it is a very different proposition to exclude the public from court in cases of incest, a step apparently taken in the interests of public decency. As Mr. Justice Darling pointed out, cases of incest are no more indecent in their details than any other case as to carnal knowledge of women. Moreover, in indecent cases the court has power under the Children Act 1908, s. 114, to clear the court while a child or young person is giving evidence, though in this instance the Legislature has expressly provided against the exclusion of bonâ fide representatives of the Press. This anomaly in the Incest Act is contrary to the principles of English law (see Scott v. Scott, 109 L. T. Rep. 1; (1913) A. C. 417), and, having worked badly in practice, there seems no reason why it should not be repealed.

Income Tax Deduction from "Excess Mineral Rights Duty."

THE short, but, as Mr. Justice Sankey befittingly styled it, difficult, question raised in the recent case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Duke of Northumberland (119 L. T. Rep. 547) needs only to be stated to show how frequently it is likely to arise: Whether, in making the computation of the sum upon which excess mineral rights duty" has to be paid, it is permissible to take into consideration and to make a deduction for income tax? In the present case, the question appears to have for the first time been brought before the court. But although absolutely bare of authority directly in point, some guidance was sought to be obtained by the learned judge from the statement of the scheme of the excess mineral rights duty contained in the opinion which was delivered by Viscount Haldane a very short while ago in Murray v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (119 L. T. Rep. 258; (1918) A. C. 541). Lord Dunedin's expostulation there