cheque for £8 1s. 6d. payable to Mr. P., which was in fact numbered 117,285, and not 117,283 as the plaintiff had informed the bank, was presented at this branch of the bank. As the result of a discussion between the manager and the cashier, the conclusion was arrived at that cheque No. 117,285 had been drawn in place of the one which had been stopped, and which was No. 117,283, and they cashed it. By this payment the plaintiff's account was depreciated so that a cheque for £7 drawn by him in favour of a Mr. N. on the 20th Aug. was dishonoured on presentation. The plaintiff accordingly brought the present action, claiming damages for negligence in paying a cheque which the plaintiff stated that he had stopped, and for refusing to pay a subsequent cheque which he had drawn. Horridge, J. held that the plaintiff's countermanding telegram was clear and unambiguous in its reference to cheque No. 117,283, and further, that the bank were not guilty of negligence because they did not exercise the extreme caution of ascertaining whether that cheque had already been presented. The plaintiff appealed. Held, that having regard to the communications to the bank and to the long interval of time in which they could have made inquiries, a duty arose out of the contractual relationship of banker and customer to make proper inquiries. The appeal therefore succeeded on either or both of the following grounds: (1) that the bank failed in their duty because they were satisfied when they ought not to have been satisfied, and (2) because it was obvious that the bank should have made some inquiry before paying the cheque. Appeal allowed. [Hilton v. Westminster Bank Limited. Ct. of App. : Bankes, Warrington, and Atkin, L.JJ. March 25.-Counsel: for the appellant, Cave, K.C. and R. J. Willis; for the respondents, Neilson, K.C. and R. Fortune. Solicitors : for the appellant, Lawson and Lawson; for the respondents, Donald McMillan and Mott.] Insurance (Marine)-Pre-carriage of goods insured Exposure to severe weather on open quay Damaged when re-shipped -Pre-carriage material fact for disclosure-Not disclosed to underwriters Waiver Avoidance of policy - Marine Insurance Act 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 41), s. 18. Appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of Branson, J. The plaintiff insured a cargo of celluloid on the steamship W. for the voyage from Halifax, N.S., to Nantes, France. The cargo arrived in a seriously damaged condition, and the plaintiffs claimed under the policy. The defendants denied liability on the ground that material facts relating to a pre-carriage of the goods had not been disclosed to them, and that if such facts had been disclosed they would have declined to undertake the risk. The goods were originally shipped from New York in Aug. 1918, a time when there was a very great shortage of shipping space, on the Lake steamer J., and much of the cargo had to be carried on deck. The J. proceeded, after delay at New London and at Sydney, Cape Breton, to Halifax, and only arrived there on the 18th Nov. Owing to her extremely slow speed the J. was not allowed to join a convoy, and the cargo was unloaded at Halifax to await re-shipment. Much of it could not be put in a warehouse and had to be left in cases on the open quay, where it remained until Jan. 1919 exposed to severe frost and snow. Branson, J. held that these facts were material to be disclosed to the underwriters, and that they were not disclosed, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed and contended that pre-carriage was not a material circumstance to be disclosed, but if it were, the defendants waived disclosure by making no inquiry. Held, that the pre-carriage of the goods and the vicissitudes to which they had been subject on the voyage and at Halifax were material circumstances to be disclosed to the underwriters under sect. 18 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, and that they were not disclosed. The decision of Lord Ellenborough in Boyd v. Dubois (3 Camp. 133), that the previous history of the goods is not material, which was relied on by the appellants, had been criticised in later cases, and was too wide a proposition if it laid down that the insurers were not bound to disclose any unusual circumstances connected with the cargo from which unforeseen consequences might follow: (Carr v. Montefiore, 5 B. & S. 408). There was no waiver of the disclosure of the adventures of the cargo to be inferred from the fact that it was shipped from Halifax, and must have been brought there from some other place, thereby CHANCERY DIVISION Company-Winding-up-Mortgage debt-Interest paid thereon after deduction of income tax not accounted for to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue-Priority-Companies Consolidation Act 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 209. In this case a company in 1920 mortgaged its freeholds and other assets for an advance of £30,000 at £8 per cent. In 1923 the mortgagee sold the property for less than the mortgage debt. Later a resolution was passed to wind up the company voluntarily. Between the dates of the mortgage and the winding-up there were no profits, but interest was paid from time to time on the mortgage money. Deductions were made from such payments for income tax. These ought forthwith to have been accounted for to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but were not, and became debts due to the Crown and remained so at the date of the winding-up. On a summons taken out to ascertain whether these were payable in priority to other debts of the company or not, Held, that these amounts could not be held to come within sect. 209 of the Companies Consolidation Act 1908, which gave priority of payment in certain cases. Nor could they be held to be moneys in the hands of the company impressed with a fiduciary character and recoverable as such. Here there was no sum of money in the hands of the alleged trustee in a tangible form to which the doctrine could apply. The Crown therefore was not entitled to priority. [Re Lang Propeller Limited. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. March 26 and 31.-Counsel: R. P. Hills (Sir Douglas Hogg, K.C. (A.-G.) with him); Jenkins, K.C., and Bischoff. Solicitors: The Solicitor for Inland Revenue; Julius, Edwards, and Julius.] Covenants Restrictive-Relief from one only sought—Motion in an action for injunction by defendants to refer to the authority and stay proceedings meanwhile-Law of Property Act 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 20), s. 84 (1), (9), (10). In this case the plaintiff was the owner of the W. estate. the defendants were persons carrying on a school on the estate contrary, as the plaintiff alleged, to the terms of the conveyance to their predecessor in title. The defendants did not deny that this was so, but they desired relief as to this particular restriction, a matter which this court would have no jurisdiction to grant. They therefore moved, under sect. 84 (9) of the Law of Property Act 1925, for an order giving leave to apply to the authority therein mentioned and staying proceedings in the meantime. By sub-sect. 10 this authority meant such one or more of the official arbitrators selected by the reference committee. For the motion it was alleged that the residential character of the estate had changed and that infringements of the restrictions had taken place without objection. For the plaintiff it was contended that there was no sufficient evidence to justify these allegations. Held, that it was very difficult to say how this jurisdiction, which was discretionary, was to be applied. That the plaintiff was entitled to select his own tribunal and could not be dislodged from that position except for sufficient cause. Had the question been raised as to the waiver of the whole of the covenants no order should be made. But here the exercise of a jurisdiction was sought which the court had not got. The defendants, therefore, ought to have the opportunity of proving their case before the new tribunal. The order on the motion would therefore be as asked, but the application to the tribunal must be made with no undue delay. [Fielden v. Byrne. Ch. Div.: Eve, J. March 27.Counsel: Gover, K.C. and W. M. Hunt; Errington. Solicitors: Royds, Rawstorne, and Co., for Wilding and Son, Blackburn; Robbins, Olivey, and Lake.] KING'S BENCH DIVISION Intoxicating liquors Club - Temporary premises - Supply during non-permitted hours-Meaning of "club "—Licensing Act 1921 (11 & 12 Geo. 5, c. 42), s. 4. The appellants were members of a club registered under the Friendly Societies Act 1896 and sects. 91 and 92 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910. On the occasion of a fête held in the neighbourhood the licensed premises of the club were closed, and intoxicating liquors, specially purchased by the committee of the club, were supplied to members during non-permitted hours at a room adjoining the ground where the fête was held, this room having been engaged for that purpose only. The appellants were convicted of supplying intoxicating liquor to, and to the order of, members in the club during non-permitted hours, contrary to sect. 4 of the Licensing Act 1921, which provides : Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, no person shall, except during the permitted hours,(a) either by himself, or by any servant or agent, sell or supply to any person in any licensed premises or club any intoxicating liquor to be consumed either on or off the premises; or (b) consume in or take from any such premises or club any intoxicating liquor." 66 Held, that the word "club" in the section meant, not the association of persons constituting the club, but the premises of the registered club, and the conviction was wrong and must be quashed. [Watson and another v. Culley. K. B. Div.: Lord Hewart, C.J., Avory and Shearman, JJ. April 13.Counsel: A. H. Forbes; S. G. Turner. Solicitors: McBride and Co., for William R. Greenland, Norwich; Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., for H. C. Davies, Norwich.] LAW LIBRARY A useful publication is The Law Relating to Estate Duty, by Dr. Jackson Wolfe and Mr. Douglas Dewar, which comes from Mr. Humphrey Milford of the Oxford University Press. Though originally drafted with the idea of making it thoroughly comprehensive, the principal Act relating to estate duty has undergone so many and such frequent changes that its present state is distinctly complicated. For this reason the authors of the book have summarised the present law together with the reported cases on estate duty, with the exception of those which have been overruled or superseded by recent legislation, and have dealt with the principles of law which are involved. The matter is classified according to subjects, and relevant parts of the various Acts dealing with estate duty are quoted in full. An Appendix contains those statutes of the 1925 legislation which effect such drastic changes in conveyancing, and which affect estate duty. Reliable information is also given in the Notes on Legacy Duty and Succession Duty, and in those on Probate, Account, and Temporary Estate Duty. From the Lord Baltimore Press, U.S.A., comes the Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, which was held at Detroit, Michigan, on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Sept. 1925, the president, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, being in the chair. An interesting statement of the progress of the work of the American Law Institute was read by Mr. W. D. Lewis of Pennsylvania, which was followed by reports on the many different activities of the association, and which would seem to be doing much excellent work. The Annual Address was given by the president, his subject being Liberty and Law. Other interesting papers were read, among them we may mention those by Mr. Edson R. Sunderland, An Appraisal of English Procedure, and Lord Buckmaster's Romance of the Law. The Report includes many other valuable expositions on various topics, with lists of members and officials of the association, the constitution and by-laws, &c. Mr. Hughes' portrait forms a suitable Frontispiece. An eminently useful publication at the present time is an Index-Guide to the Law of Property Act 1925 (The Kelly Law-Book Company Limited). The authors Mr. Kenneth K. O'Connor and Mr. Philip James Sykes most opportunely send it out as a complete Index and an Epitome of the new Law of Property Act, which, though only one of the several new Acts of the recent legislation, has a wider range and consequently greater effect on English life and law than any of the others. The arrangement of the Index-Guide is clear and is in alphabetical order; information is given concisely under each heading. Decisions given up to the month of March of this year appear in an Appendix. The use of this little work will do much to assist in elucidating the vast amount of matter contained in the new Act. An instructive Foreword by Mr. Edward H. Benn emphasises the importance to conveyancers of endeavouring wholeheartedly to work the new system and to carry out its design of modernising forms and practice, as leading to simplification in the methods of conveyancing. NEW EDITIONS A new edition (the fourth) of Mr. Frank Baden Fuller's well-known work The Law Relating to Friendly Societies (Stevens and Sons Limited) is very welcome. While there has been but little legislation affecting societies of this class since the publication of the last edition of this book, there has nevertheless been the National Insurance Act 1911 and the National Health Insurance Act of 1924 with voluminous regulations, under which the working of the system is entrusted to approved societies, and secondly, the alteration in the basis of the law relating to industrial assurance which has been dealt with by the Industrial Assurance Act of 1923. The work has been brought up to date, the cases reported being included up to the end of 1925. The relative Statutory Rules and Orders appear in an Appendix; this also contains Forms. and Model Rules. The book is well indexed and is quite comprehensive. Messrs. Butterworth and Co. have just published the Sixteenth Edition of Coote's Common Form Practice and Tristram's Contentious Practice, which combined work is edited by Mr. A. Fitzgerald Hart, Mr. C. T. A. Wilkinson, and Mr. W. E. Willan. In the thorough revision of the book rendered necessary by the great changes in law and practice which have taken place since the publication of the last edition, ten years ago, the editors, while including both old and new practices, have deemed it advisable to keep the two separate, where necessary. The original arrangement has been altered as little as possible. Attention has been given to the several Consolidating Acts which passed into law last year, principally, of course, the Administration of Estates and Judicature; to the reorganisation of the District Probate Registries; and to the separation of the Irish Free State from Great Britain. The initial object of the combined works is excellently carried out, i.e., the setting forth of the principles which regulate the practice, both contentious and non-contentious, in respect of the granting of Probate and Letters of Administration, with reliable guidance to needful method and information for practitioners. Volume XI. of the Second Edition of Mews' Digest of English Case Law, published under the editorship of Sir Alexander Wood Renton, Mr. Sydney Edward Williams, and Mr. Wyndham A. Bewes, comes to hand. (Sweet and Maxwell Limited; Stevens and Sons Limited; the Solicitors' Law Stationery Society Limited). This volume covers the titles Insurance to Landlord and Tenant the last named having by far the greater number of cases digested; International Law and Intoxicating Liquor also include many in number. All cases are digested to the end of 1924. The publication of a temporary Table of Cases to the volumes I. to XI. is promised and will be a distinct addition to the usefulness of this serviceable work. ANNUALS The Thirtieth Edition of the Yearly County Court Practice (the " Yellow Book ") is published by Messrs. Butterworth and Co. for 1926, and is once more edited by Mr. Edgar Dale and Mr. K. E. Shelley, with the assistance of Mr. Adam Partington, who has undertaken responsibility for the Time and Practice Tables and Costs and Fees Sections. Many important additions and alterations have inevitably been made in this issue owing to recent legislation; the chapter which treats of the Workmen's Compensation has been entirely rearranged, and cross-references added to meet the necessities of the exposition of the new Act which will come into force on and after the 1st of May of this year. The editors have incorporated the new County Court Rules of 1925 with those now in operation, also relevant parts of the 1925 Administration of Justice Act; and Mr. E. A. Digby has again brought the Admiralty Section up to date. Among other important matter contained in the Second Volume will be found the new Guardianship of Infant Act (1925). The whole book has been thoroughly revised and is quite indispensable for the Profession. The Forty-Eighth Edition of that indispensable work Stone's Justices' Manual now appears for 1926, edited by Mr. F. B. Dingle (Butterworth and Co; Shaw and Sons Limited). From among the vast amount of legislation passed during the year 1925, forty-four statutes treat of the subjects dealt with in the Justices' Manual, the most important being the Criminal Justice Act, which is to come into operation in the months of June and July of this year. The jurisdiction of justices and of Quarter Sessions is very materially enlarged by this Act, which also provides new procedure with regard to persons and corporations, and various other provisions dealing with the right of appeal, &c. The editor has revised the whole and brought it up to date. A hundred new cases are included, and the special points elucidated in some of the most notable cases are pointed out in this edition. The high reputation of Stone is well maintained. The London Association of Accountants have published their Certified Accountants' Year Book for 1926, which contains, besides a list of members in the United Kingdom, America, and the Far East (the total having increased to a gratifying extent), much information respecting the Association, its rules and regulations. We have also received a copy of The Central Association of Accountants' List of Members, Articles, By-laws, &c., which is published by them, and which has been revised up to the end of Dec. 1925. An audited balance-sheet is shown, as well as the Associations' benevolent activities and a catalogue of the Library, which appears to be well-equipped with books of reference on subjects relative to accountancy. We have received from Messrs. Longmans, Green, and Co. a copy of Conway Morgan, a book of reminiscences of a promising young life cut off ere its prime, as were so many others, by premature death in the early years of the recent war. The memoir is written by his mother with much charm and includes happy histories of boyhood, at the Bar, some of his own letters and poems, and a graphic record of the heroic way in which he died. BOOKS RECEIVED Yearly County Court Practice 1926. In two vols. Butterworth and Co., Bell-yard, Temple Bar, W.C.; Shaw and Sons Limited, 7 and 8, Fetter-lane, E.C. 4. Price 40s. net. O'Connor and Sykes' Index-Guide to the Law of Property Act 1925. Kelly Law-Book Company Limited, 57, Careystreet, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price 8s. 6d. net. Fuller on Friendly Societies. Fourth Edition. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price £1 10s. net. Mews' Digest of English Case Law. Second Edition. Vol. 11. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2 and 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2; Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancerylane, W.C. 2; Solicitors' Law Stationery Society Limited, 104-107, Fetter-lane, E.C. 4. Price 35s. per vol. . Tristram and Coote on Probate Practice. Sixteenth Edition by A. F. Hart, C. T. A. Wilkinson, and W. E. Willan. Butterworth and Co., Bell-yard, Temple Bar, W.C. 2. Price 50s. net. Problems of Peace and War. Transactions of the Grotius Society. Vol 11. Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2 and 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price, to non-members, 7s. 6d. net. Agreement for Sale of Freehold or Leasehold Property. The Golden Rule Condition of Sale, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 3, Chancery-lane, W.C. 2. Price 4d. each form. Riviere on the Powers of and Applications to the Court under the New Property Acts. Stevens and Sons Limited, 119 and 120, Chancery-lane, W.C.2. Price 6s. net. CRIMINAL LAW BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS Abingdon, Thursday, April 22. Bury St. Edmunds, Monday, April 19. Great Yarmouth, Monday, April 26. Leeds, Monday, April 19. Margate, Saturday, April 17. LEGISLATION Hotels and Restaurants THE House of Commons papers contain two measures thus entitled. One (Bill 12) is presented by Mr. Remer and supported by, inter alios, Sir Arthur Holbrook. The second (Bill 28) is distinguishable by its title of Hotels and Restaurants (No. 2) Bill, and is introduced by Sir Arthur Holbrook, with a different body of supporters. Both these Bills are due for further consideration on the 14th May. Their provisions are very similar, and the general purpose is to give to hotels and restaurants a licence on lines differing from those obtainable by the ordinary public-house. A justices' licence once granted would be immune from annual renewal, and only revocable on proof that the premises are not properly conducted or are no longer suitable. The premises would not be liable to levy for compensation purposes and, the Innkeepers Act 1863 notwithstanding, the owner would not be in any case or under any circumstances liable, in the absence of agreement, to make good to any person any loss of or injury to goods or property of any description, though on the premises, to a greater amount than £500. These are large questions involving considerations of grave public policy upon which it is not easy to form a convinced opinion until the arguments pro and con are weighed with some deliberation. It is within the knowledge of every licensing justice that the revolution in road transport has effected a corresponding revolution in the position of the roadside inn, and that, alike for catering and residential purposes, it is necessary for them to look at the questions which come before them from a rather different angle. It is a matter for quiet thought whether we have got so far that we must reclassify licensed premises and distinguish between the public-house and the hotel, and if so how we are to find a form of words appropriate for a somewhat delicate distinction. It is rather noticeable in certain areas that, in response to house shortage and all that this entails, large premises become converted into hotels, which cater for permanent residents and that they begin by forswearing a licence. In a year or two application is made for one on the ground that they get so many week-enders whose wants cannot be supplied conveniently through the medium of a messenger to some neighbouring purveyor of refreshments. Whether the coincidence is of set purpose or not, we are unable to say, but it is a circumstance not immaterial to the Bill that large numbers of persons engaged in the hotel trade are expected to reach this country from abroad almost at once and are to tour the provinces. The subject of licensing is both vast and of far-reaching importance to the community, and while it is certain that some changes may be fairly demanded in regard to some of its aspects, it is not likely that proposals contained in these two Bills will escape challenge, The Re-assembly of Parliament THE close of the Easter recess has brought the House of Commons face to face with the gravity of its programme. The progress of events in relation to the coal industry justifies the expectation that the paramount necessity for achieving some solution of that problem may entail many disappointments for those who feel the urgency of some of the many other proposals before the country. The Economy Bill calls for early consideration, and there is much to be done to get it through its Committee stage before the date fixed for the Budget. There is already every sign that this Bill will not pass without serious criticism. The Electricity Bill is a measure also which must somehow or other receive full consideration. The problems involved have been discussed by various authorities over a period of years, and delays innumerable have arisen. The present measure may not be perfect, but it can surely not be impossible to find through its methods a plan to provide industry in this country with a more abundant and more economical source of power and light. There is no getting over the figures which show that the consumption of units here per head of population is only 118 as compared with that of 900 in Canada, 700 in Switzerland, and 500 in the United States. The corresponding figures for other countries leaves us well at the bottom of the list. This is an impossible state of things for a great commercial and industrial community, whose circumstances are such as ours to-day. The main objections to the measure advanced by its opponents are mutually destructive, for one section argues that it is Nationalisation in effect, and the other claims to oppose it on the ground that this principle is absent. Both can scarcely be correct, and as the Bill goes forward this fact should, it would seem, detach one or other party from opposition. Although other points may well develop in later stages there is ground for hope that the attitude of some of the representatives of the industry itself may be appreciated and that the Legislature may follow their example in seeking to co-operate in efforts to make the Bill a practical success. The future of Bills backed by private members under these circumstances of public business is far from rosy. OCCASIONAL NOTES Mr. Justice Greer will be the Commercial judge during the present sittings. Mr. Justice Swift and Mr. Justice Acton will leave London on Monday next for Liverpool, on the Northern Circuit, and will open the commission on the following day. They will not return to London until the business at Manchester is finished, the commission day for such town being fixed for Monday, the 10th May. At this assize both criminal and civil business will be taken. If the Probate and Divorce common jury cases are taken towards the end of the present sittings, ample notice will be given by the court. The April Sessions at the Central Criminal Court will commence on Tuesday next at the Old Bailey at ten o'clock. Mr. Justice Avory, Mr. Justice Horridge, and Mr. Justice Rowlatt are on the rota to attend. Wednesday, the 28th inst., will be "call night" at the Four Inns of Court. At a meeting of the Union Society of London, to be held in the Middle Temple Common Room on Wednesday next, the 21st inst., at 8 o'clock p.m., the following debate will be opened and considered by the House, viz.: "That this House is of opinion that the grant of Home Rule to Ireland has been of no benefit to that country." The annual cricket match between the Bar and Barristers' Clerks will be played, by the kind permission of the Surrey Cricket Club, at the Kennington Oval on Monday, the 31st May, next, at eleven o'clock. All the expenses have been guaranteed and the proceeds of the sale of tickets will be devoted to the Barristers' Clerks' Benevolent Fund. The result of last year's match was very satisfactory, and a considerable sum was placed to the credit of this fund. Tickets may be obtained from the hon. treasurer, Mr. Stanley Sharp, 4, Temple-gardens, Temple. The Medico-Legal Society will hold a meeting at 11, Chandosstreet, Cavendish-square, on Tuesday next, the 20th inst., at 8.30 p.m., when a paper will be read by Mr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell on "Some Aspects of the New Regulations on Preservatives," which will be followed by a discussion. Members may introduce guests. Mr. R. M. Montgomery, K.C., will take the chair at the fourth and final smoking concert of the thirty-third season of the Legal Musical Society, at Cannon-street Hotel, on Friday next, the 23rd inst., at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Ernest Page, K.C., Recorder of Carlisle, has received the honorary freedom of that city, in recognition of his services as Recorder for the last twenty-one years. Mr. Page is a native of Carlisle, of which he is now the fourteenth honorary freeman, others being Lord Ullswater, the late President Woodrow Wilson, Lord Selby, and the late Prince Christian. Under the auspices of the International Association of Penal Law, an important congress will take place in Brussels from the 26th to the 29th July. Among the questions on the agenda are the following: "Must the measure of surety be substituted for the penalty or simply complete it?" Is it advisable to institute an International Criminal Jurisdiction and under what methods?" The congress will open on Monday, the 26th July, at the Palais des Académies, under the presidency of M. Poullet, Prime Minister, honorary chairman of the congress. Discussions will take place on the 26th and 27th, the 28th and 29th being reserved for various excursions. Many eminent lawyers from Europe and America have already intimated their intention to take part in the proceedings. All those who wish to subscribe to the congress should send their adhesions to M. Auger, 53B, Quai des Grands Augustins, Paris, together with the sum of 70 French francs (50frs. for the members of the association). On the presentation of an identity card which will be given them by the organising committee, all those taking part in this congress will benefit by a reduction of 50 per cent. on the Belgian railways and on the Dover-Ostend steamers. For further particulars, kindly write to M. Roux, general secretary, professor at the University of Strasburg, 7A, Rue Stoeber, Strasburg. In addition to the great men like Scott, Jeffrey, John Wilson ("Christopher North "), Aytoun, and, nearer our own time, R. L. Stevenson, who by their work in literature have shed an undying lustre on the Legal Profession in Scotland, there has been a host of other writers connected with the Scottish Bar who, although relatively obscure, have yet done excellent service in maintaining the literary traditions of the Parliament House. To the latter class belonged George Outram, the author of the ever delightful Legal and Other Lyrics, first printed in 1851 and reprinted many times since. It was known, indeed, that even the edition published in 1888, under the supervision of Dr. J. H. Stoddart and illustrated by W. Ralston and A. S. Boyd, although giving us the cream of Outram's work, did not contain all the lyrical effusions that came from his pen; and so his admirers received an unexpected pleasure on finding in the Scotsman last week some lines, hitherto unpublished, addressed by him to his friend and fellow-member of the Faculty of Advocates, W. M. Ellis, exhibiting all his wonted play of fancy and skill in the management of his rhymes. Outram found a multitude of admirers outside the Profession, yet it was in the ranks of lawyers, and in particular in the ranks of Scottish lawyers, that he could count his most appreciative readers, for they could best enjoy the play he made with the peculiarities and technical terms of Scots law. "The Annuity" is a joy for ever; so, too, is "The Multiplepoinding"; while "The Faculty Roll," with its ingenious interweaving of the names of the leading advocates of Outram's own day, is an interesting and valuable memento of the past. English readers sometimes stand aghast at what they term the barbarous jargon of many of the Scots law terms, from which Outram extracts so much humour; but in the past English law has had not a few which have seemed equally barbarous to the northern lawyer. In The Book Hunter, Hill Burton, a member of the Scots Bar, has the following amusing passage on this subject: "I can attest from experience that, to a person trained in one set of technicalities, the pottering about among those of a different parish is exceedingly exhilarating. When one has been at work among interlocutors, suspensions, tacks, wadsets, multiplepoindings, adjudication in implement, assignations, infeftments, homologations, charges of horning, quadriennium utiles, vicious intromissions, decrees of putting to silence-the 66 brain, being saturated with these and their kindred, becomes refreshed by crossing the border of legal nomenclature, and getting among common recoveries, demurrers, quare impedits, tails-male, tails-female, docked tails, latitats, avowrys, nihil dicits, cestui que trusts, estoppels, essoigns, darrein presentments, mandamuses, qui-tams, capias ad faciendums or ad withernam, and so forth." Since Burton, in facetious mood, wrote these lines the terminology both of Scots and English law has been purged of a goodly number of the quaint archaic terms with which it was once plentifully garnished, but each still retains not a few which provoke a smile from the philosophic observer. An incident related of Abraham Lincoln, in the latest issue of the American Bar Association Journal, of his returning the larger portion of a fee on the ground that the amount sent was much too large for the work done, offers fresh proof, if proof were needed, that the popular jibe, as to the cupidity of lawyers in the matter of fees, is not always verified in actual life. Lincoln was by no means the only lawyer who objected to the fee offered him on the ground, not that it was too small, but that it was on too liberal a scale. Mansfield returned 995 of the thousand guineas sent him by the Duchess of Marlborough, with an intimation that “the professional fee with a general retainer could neither be less nor more than five guineas." Topping, a once famous King's Counsel, showed the like scrupulous regard in this matter. Instead of pocketing the large fee sent him, he returned it with the observation that the amount-a thousand guineasindicated either a doubt of his doing his duty on the ordinary terms known to the Profession, or an expectation that he should do something beyond the line of his duty. Like Mansfield, he contented himself with the modest five guineas. An incident not unlike these marked the career of Lord Justice Kay, as was mentioned in these columns shortly after his death. A consultation was being held in his chambers in a suit not particularly difficult, but in which many different interests had to be represented. The estate was large, and so were the fees. In the middle of the consultation Kay inquired how much was marked on his brief; on being told, he said: "That is far too high," and told his clerk to put down about a third of the amount. How often, too, are lawyers, especially the younger members, expected to give their professional services without remuneration, and do so without a murmur? Many amusing stories, too, have been told of strange fees offered to members of the Bar. Sir Frank Lockwood, for his defence of Peace, the notorious criminal, received from his client, after he was sentenced, a ring, a most evil-looking thing bearing a suspicious resemblance to a knuckleduster, but we are told that Lady Lockwood declined to give the gift house room. More amusing still is the story of the fee received by James Crauford (afterwards Lord Ardmillan of the Court of Session) for defending, at the Bar of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a clergyman charged with drunkenness. The clergyman handed Crauford a neat little packet that looked in bulk like a fee of fifteen or twenty golden sovereigns. After the case was over-it ended in the deposition of the minister-Crauford, on reaching home, undid the packet and found that it contained, not a number of golden coins, but six peppermint lozenges of the kind most efficacious for dissembling the smell of whisky! Lord Reading, who has returned to this country on the completion of his term of office as Viceroy of India, is one of the few personages who, having filled the Lord Chief Justiceship of England, have won fresh lustre, on the vacating of that great office, in other fields of public service. Sir Edward Coke, as a former Lord Chief Justice, returned to the House of Commons, of which he had been Speaker, and, in his old age, was the hero of an achievement, before which his other distinctions paled, as the framer and mover of the famous Petition of Right. So, too, Pemberton, as a former Lord Chief Justice, won fresh laurels as counsel for the Seven Bishops, whose defence he conducted with conspicuous ability. The promotion, as in the cases of Lord Hardwicke and Lord Campbell, of a Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellorship, although a transference from a wholly judicial office to an office both political and judicial, cannot be regarded as a migration from one career to another, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor is head of the Judiciary. The fact, moreover, that Lord Hardwicke, Lord Mansfield, and, in a later generation, Lord Ellenborough, were members of the Cabinet while holding the office of Lord Chief Justice, must be regarded as a union of two offices, in their nature incapable of being held in conjunction, and not as a change in the careers of the holders. It may be said without fear of contradiction, that Lord Reading is one of the few ex-Lord Chief Justices who has entered on a fresh career, and has thereby achieved an enhanced reputation. It is not unworthy of note that former holders of the Great Seal have very rarely held subsequently, as in the case of Lord Birkenhead, office purely political in its character. There are, however, instances of the holding by ex-Lord Chancellors of offices purely political. John Methuen was appointed, from the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland in 1703, to the position of Ambassador to the King of Portugal, with whom he concluded the celebrated commercial treaty known as the Methuen Treaty. Lord Camden, as a former Lord Chancellor, was, in 1784, appointed Lord President of the Council; Lord Campbell, as a former Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and in this connection it may be mentioned, as an analogous incident to that of an ex-Chancellor as holder of office purely political in its character, that Mr. George Ponsonby, who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the Ministry of All the Talents 1806-1807, was, from 1807 till his death in 1816, the recognised official leader of Opposition in the House of Commons. Dr. Axham, whose name was removed from the Medical Register in 1911 because he had acted as anæsthetist to Sir H. A. Barker, and because he refused to discontinue the service, died on the 8th inst. The fame of Sir H. A. Barker spread rapidly, and the honour of knighthood was conferred upon him. It was widely felt that Dr. Axham should no longer remain under the ban of his profession. "The public,“ writes The Times, “had been led to expect that at its forthcoming sitting the General Medical Council would restore Dr. Axham's name to the Medical Register. The opportunity to perform this act of grace has now passed." The resolution for the removal of Dr. Axham's name from the Medical Register may presumably be expunged. Parliamentary history furnishes instances of the rescinding of resolutions whose injustice has been, at a later period, demonstrated. In 1769 Wilkes was expelled from the House of Commons for a libel, a new writ was ordered for the County of Middlesex, which he represented, and he was re-elected without a contest, upon which it was resolved, on the 17th Feb., "that having been in this session expelled this House, John Wilkes was, and is, incapable of being elected to serve in the present Parliament. Thirteen years subsequently, on the 3rd May 1782, the resolution of the 17th Feb. 1769 was ordered to be expunged from the Journals as subversive of the rights of the whole body of the electors. Again, the House of Commons, on the 27th Jan. 1891, a few days subsequently to the death of Mr. Bradlaugh, resolved that the resolution of the 22nd June 1880, which debarred Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the oath or affirmation, be expunged from the Journals, and accordingly the clerk passed a red line through that resolution in the volumes preserved in the library and the Journal Office of the House, and noted in the margin of the page that the paragraph was expunged pursuant to the resolution of the House. The Clerk also addressed letters to the librarians of the British Museum, the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, requesting them to note the proceedings on the copies of the Journal in their libraries. 66 The 5th inst., which was the 300th anniversary of the death of Francis Bacon, was commemorated by many notices in the Press of the career of this man of extraordinary genius. To persons learned in the law" the impress of Bacon's individuality, made on the Profession of the Bar and the status of its members, cannot fail to be of interest, and is little, if at all, remembered. To Bacon we unquestionably owe the class of "His Majesty's Counsel learned in the law." Till the seventeenth century there were no other King's Counsel recognised in this country than the King's Serjeants and the Attorney and Solicitor-General. The first deviation from this rule was made by the contrivance of Bacon, who succeeded, for special purposes, in getting himself appointed King's Counsel extraordinary without being either a Serjeantat-Law or one of the ordinary staff of Law Officers, or even being retained in any case for the Crown. "There have been," writes Mr. Serjeant Pulling, in his Order of the Coif, "many mistakes and misstatements made as to Bacon's appointment with respect to the fact of his having been really |