danger run by being outside those lines, and to the curiosities of wind deflection which prevent lamps keeping alight in certain positions in relation to wind-screens, hoods, or other fixtures. If the Petersfield police, then, are really going to undertake a campaign on these lines, there are few who will escape a somewhat tyrannical enforcement of the law. The same authorities have, however, been worated in an attempt to secure the conviction of a motorist whose head lamps were alight, but the side lamps unlighted. According to newspaper reports, a driver at Maidenhead was less fortunate, and was fined because he had no head light at all. If this be a true statement, it is not hard to see the difficulties of the motorist. If he has no head light, he is fined; if he has one, he is deemed a nuisance for dazzling the public, and it must be admitted that no eclipsing arrangements entirely oure the evil. If he blows his horn he is blamed but little fess than if he leaves it un blown. He is worried for a licence, and must carry it on his person if he has more than one car. The troubles of a man who changes his car for another are unending, and when on tour he is liable to be called on by local officials to inquire whether and where his carriage tax has been paid. In the absence of the receipt, his statements are sifted with suspicion. While every care should rightly be exercised for the public safety, it surely seems as though this could be secured without this persecution of those who so largely pay to maintain the roads for all to use. THE NEW POLICE MAGISTRATE. PREDICTIONS grounded on antecedent careers of success or failure in a judicial capacity are as frequently mistaken as political predictions whose fallibility is one of the commonplaces of public life. The appointment, however, of Mr. E. H. Pickersgill to one of the metropolitan police magistracies emboldens one to say that the new magistrate would prove false to a lengthened and self-devoted service in the cause of criminal law reform and the relief of the asperities in the lives of the poor if he did not prove himself a wise, sympathetic, and beneficent administrator of the law and a refuge to the oppressed. Mr. Pickersgill's career in the House of Commons has been singularly unobtrusive. He cares more for great causes he has at heart than for any personal advantage or credit to himself. He has always been so ready to suppress himself and to give to others the advantages of the fruits of his labours that he has been scarcely appreciated at his true worth. If, however, anyone in a secular avocation might be termed "A Brother of the Poor," that distinction may justly appertain to Mr. Pickersgill. In a Parliamentary career extending from its commencement without an interruption to its close of over a quarter of a century the cause of criminal law reform and the improvement of the social and economic condition of the poorer classes has had in him one of its best but least obtrusive friends. His persistent investigation into cases of wrongful conviction has powerfully contributed to the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. He has been a tireless critio of the system of committals to prison for nonpayment of debts by instalments. He has in season and out of season worked for the total abolition of flogging; for the speedy trial of prisoners; for the amelioration of the lot of prisoners awaiting trial; for the softening, as far as is consistent with the ends of justice, of the rigours inseparable from imprisonment; for the abolition of capital punishment; for the reclamation and rehabilitation of the fallen, for whose orime so often the system of society is more responsible than the unhappy offenders themselves. Two questions taken almost haphazard from the Parliamentary Reports of the 10th April 1906 illustrate the trend of mind of Mr. Pickersgill in his magisterial capacity. "Mr. Pickersgill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that during the year 1904 no fewer than 107,625 persons were received in prison in default of payment of fines, and whether he will issue a circular to magistrates calling their attention to the provisions of sect. 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which sanctions the allowance of time for payment and repayment by instalments. "Mr. Pickersgill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during the year 1904 no fewer than 367 persons, of whom forty-nine were eventually acquitted, were detained in prison before trial for upwards of sixteen weeks; whether in these circumstances he will issue a circular to magistrates calling their attention to the provisions of the Bail Act 1898; and whether he will also instruct every governor of a prison to inform the Home Office at once of any case where a prisoner 18 received into his custody on committal for trial when the governor knows or has reason to believe that upwards of twelve weeks will elapse between the committal and the trial." These questions indicate the leanings of Mr. Pickersgill, and his desire to alievate, so far as may be, the sufferings necessarily entailed by the penal system. His transference to the magisterial Bench from the House of Commons will not be 80 abrupt as the promotion to a judicial position of the ordinary party politician, who is compelled henceforth, as the phrase is, to keep aloof from politics. Mr. Pickersgill as the magistrate will in other conditions pursue the good work of Mr. Pickersgill the member of the House of Commons, who was not so much a politician as a philanthropist, and will have in his new sphere ample oppor. tunity of tempering justice with mercy to the less favoured members of the great human family. REPORT ON VIVISECTION. A WHITE PAPER was issued on the 22nd inst. dealing with the number of experiments on living animals during the year 1910 and the nature of the experiments carried out under Act of Parliament last year. Nine new places were registered for the performance of experiments, and three places were removed from the register during 1910. The total number of licensees was 542. Reports have been furnished by these licensees in the form required by the Home Secretary, these returns showing that 147 licensees performed no experiments. The total number of experiments was 95,731, being 9454 more than in 1909. Experiments to the number of 90.792 were performed without anesthetics. These were mostly inoculations, but a few were feeding experiments, or the administration of various substances by the mouth or by inhalation, or the abstraction of blood by puncture or simple venesection. In no instance, says Dr. Thane, the inspector. has a certificate dispensing with the use of anaesthetics been allowed for an experiment involving a erious operation. Inoculations into deep parts, entailing a preliminary incision in order to expose the part into which the inoculation is to be made, are required to be per. formed under anesthetics. Certificate A allows experiments to be performed without anaesthetics. The report, however, states that the operative procedure in experiments under that certificate is only such as is attended "by no considerable, if appreciable, pain." In the event of pain ensuing as the result of an inoculation a condition attached to the licence requires that the animal shall be killed under anesthetics as soon as the main result of the experiment has been attained. During last year 49,662 experiments were performed by twentyseven licensees working at eight institutions in the course of cancer investigations. Of these experiments 48,846 were almost entirely inoculations into mice. A large number of experiments, almost wholly simple inoculations, were performed either on behalf of official bodies with a view to the preservation of the public health or directly for the diagnosis and treatment of disease. Several county councils and municipal corporations have their own laboratories in which bacteriological investigations are carried on, including the necessary tests on living animals, while many others have arrangements by which similar observations are made on their behalf in the laboratories of universities, colleges, and other institutions. A sewage farm is registered as a place in which experiments on living animals may be performed in order that the character of the effluent may be tested by its effects on the health of fish. The Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have laboratories which are registered for the performance of experiments having for their object the detention, prevention, and study of diseases of man and animals. In other places experiments were performed on behalf of the Home Office, the Naval Medical Service, the War Office, the Army Medical Department, the Army Medical Advisory Board, the Army Veterinary Service, the General Post Office, the Local Government Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, the Advisory Committee for Plague in India, and the Tropical Diseases and Glass-Blowers' Cataract Committees of the Royal Society. Eighty licensees return nearly 19,000 experiments which were performed for Government departments, county councils, municipal corporations, or other public health authorities, and seventeen licensees performed over 8000 experimenta for the preparation and testing of antitoxic sera and vaccines, and for the testing and standardising of drugs. COUNTY COURTS. RECENT DECISION. NORRIS v. NEW. Restraint of Trade-Sale of "Grocery and general Business "—Agreement by Vendor not to carry on "similar Grocery or general Business Vendor setting up as "Confectioner and Restauranteur"—Overlapping Trades-Breach of Agreement. IN the County Court of Surrey, holden at Chertsey, before His Honour Judge Harington, on the 6th inst., the above case was heard. The defendant had for some years carried on the business of a general or grocery stores at Ashford, Middlesex, a town of about 5000 inhabitants, and in July 1910 entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff to sell to the plaintiff the goodwill of the business and certain fixtures and fittings for £90, stock at valuation extra. The agreement contained the following clause: "It is further agreed by the vendor that he will not take, keep, be interested or concerned in any similar general or grocery business for five years within two miles without returning on demand the sum of £90, being part payment of the purchase money." The sale of the business was com. pleted in Sept. 1910, and the plaintiff took possession. In Feb. 1911 the defendant bought what he described as a "confectioner's and restauranteur's business, which was situated a quarter of a mile from the plaintiff's premises, and at his new premises the defendant provided meals, which were consumed on the premises, for customers, 39 and also sold sweets, chocolates, fancy biscuite, mineral waters, ices, tea in packets, coffee in tins, and cocoa in tins, but no other commodities. The plaintiff at bis premises sold upwards of a hundred different kinds of articles, including sweets, biscuits, mineral waters, coffee, cocoa, and tea, in which last-mentioned article he stated he did his chief business. The plaintiff brought this action on the clause of the agreement, claiming the return of the £90 and alternatively an injunction. The defendant's defence was (inter alia) that there had been no breach of the clause of the agreement. It was admitted that the clause was reasonably necessary for the protection of the purchaser. A. S. Poyser (instructed by Wilfred Firth, Brentford), for the plaintiff, contended that the defendant was carrying on a business substantially similar to that of the plaintiff, and he relied chiefly on Drew v. Guy (71 L. T. Rep. 220; (1894) 3 Ch. 25). Kemp. K.C. and Courtenay Sandford (instructed by Carter and Carter), for the defendant, argued contrà, and cited Stuart v. Diplock (43 Ch. Div. 343) and Lumiey v. Metropolitan Railway Company (34 L. T. Rep. 774). His HONOUR said that the defendant was now carrying on a confectioner's and restauranteur's business, which was a well-known and well-defined business Had the defendant broken his agreement because be sold some of the articles also sold by the plaintiff ? He certainly sold some few articles sold by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff sold a large number of different articles not dealt in by the defendant. Could the defendant's business be fairly described as a similar grocer's and general business"? Did he substantially carry on a business of that description, and, if so, did he seriously compete with the plaintiff On the evidence he was satisfied that the defendant's business was not a "similar grocery and general business," and did not seriously compete with the plaintiff's, and the defendant therefore entitled to judgment. Durham, Tuesday (R. By) Eastbourne, Thursday, at 10 Goole, Monday Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30 Halifax, Monday (J.S. at 9.30) and Haslingden, Thursday, at 9.30 Huddersfield, Thursday, and Friday (R. By) Hull, Friday and Saturday Kingston-on Thames, Friday Lancaster. Friday, at 9.30 Leeds, Monday (J.S. & A.O.), Wednesday. Thursday (J.S. & A.O.), and Friday, at 10 Lewes, Tuesday Lichfield, Tuesday (J.S.) Liverpool, Monday (By at 11), Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday, and Friday (B., A., & W.C.), at 10 Madeley, Wednesday, at 10 Maidstone, Friday, at 9 Mansfield, Tuesday, at 10 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Mold, Monday New Malton, Thursday Newport (Mon.), Tuesday (R. By), at 10.30 Newport (Salop), Thursday, at 10 Northampton, Tuesday (R. By), at 12 Nottingham. Monday (County Courts Act 1903, if necessary), Thursday (J.S.), and Friday, at 10 Oldham, Wednesday (Reg.), at 9.30 Ormskirk, Tuesday, at 10 Otley, Wednesday, at 9.45 Oxford, Tuesday, at 10 Portsmouth, Monday (R. By), at 11; Thursday, at 10.30 Redhill, Wednesday, at 10 Rothbury, Thursday, at 10 Royston, Wednesday, at 11.30 Saddleworth, Friday Salford,* Tuesday, St. Albans, Monday, at 10 and Friday Scarborough, Tuesday Sheffield, Wednesday, Wednesday, Thursday (By at 2), and Friday, at 10 Shipston-on-Stour, Tuesday, at 10 Shoreditch, Tuesday Shrewsbury, Monday and Friday, at 10 Solihull, Monday Southampton, Tuesday, at 10 Southwark, Monday and Tuesday, at 10.30 Sunderland, Thursday (R. By) Tamworth, Monday (J.S.) Thrapstone, Friday, at 11 Uxbridge, Wednesday, at 10 Wakefield, Tuesday, at 10; Thursday (R. By), at 11 Walsall, Wednesday (J.S.) Wandsworth, Monday Warrington, Thursday Warwick, Friday, at 10 Wellington (Salop), Tuesday, at GENERAL INTELLIGENCE. HEIRS-AT-LAW AND NEXT OF KIN. DOBSON (Robert), son of George Dobson, the testator, or his legal personal representatives claiming under inquiries made in the matter of the trusts of the will of George Dobson, deceased, to come in, by Nov. 30, at chambers of Warrington and Parker, JJ., Room 252. Hearing Dec. 7, at 12, at said chambers. KEARSEY (James), son of James and Mary Kearsey, or, if he died after Jan. 26, 1911, his legal personal representatives or other persons entitled as next of kin or otherwise to the estate of Sarah Bridges or Brydges, Frampton Mansell, Sapperton (who died Jan. 26, 1911), in the will of Mary Ratcliffe mentioned, or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Nov. 10, and prove their claims at chambers of Swinfen Eady and Neville, JJ., and to enter his or their names at Room 286, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing Nov. 16, at 12, at said chambers. WILLIAMSON (Emily), Greatham, who died March 3, 1909. Heir or heirsat-law or other persons entitled to her real estate and next of kin or their legal personal representatives, to come in, by Nov. 1, and prove their claims at chambers of Swinfen Eady and Neville, JJ., and to enter their names at Room 286, Royal Courts of Justice. Hearing Nov. 8, at 12, at said chambers. APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK NOTICES OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M. ON TUB A. DUDLEY PERMANENT MONEY SOCIETY.-Petition for winding-up to be heard DAGGER HEY BRICK COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Aug. 19, to W. W. Brierley, 24, Clegg-st, Oldham. EAST YORKSHIRE STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Aug. 8, to G. W. Townend, Carlisle-chmbrs, Goole. And. M. Jackson and Co., Hull, sols. for liquidator. LIMITED. Petition for winding-up to be heard Aug. 16, before the Vacation Judge, Horridge, J. Mills, Curry, and Gaskell, 11, Queen Victoria-st, E.C., sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by Aug. 15. HOLBORN LEATHER WORKS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 5, to J. R. Burgess, 68, Albion-st, Leeds, or A. R. Webb, 25, Brasennose-st, Manchester. Peckover and Scrivens, Leeds, sols. to liquidators. HARROW LAND COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Aug. 8, to Patersons, Snow, and Co., 25, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C. J. FRANCIS AND CO. LIMITED.-Order for continuation of voluntary winding-up subject to supervision of the court, and reappointment of Alexander Price, of 21, Birkbeck-rd, West Dulwich, as liquidator, made by Neville, J., on July 17. Church, Rendell, Bird, and Co., 9, Bedford-row, W.C., agents for P. H. Chappell, Stourbridge, sol. for pet. JAMES H. HODGSON LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Aug. 3, at Huddersfield County Court. Learoyd and Co., Huddersfield, sols, to pets. Notices of appearance by Aug. 2. JOSEPH SHAW AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by July 29, to J. J. Finlayson, 3, Railway-st, Huddersfield. LAUREL MILLS LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard July 31, by Court of Chancery of County Palatine of Lancaster, sitting at Manchester, at 10.30. Bingham, Hall, and Ritchie, Manchester, sols. for pets. Notices of appearance by 2 on July 29. LIMITED. Petition for winding-up to be heard Aug. 9, before the Vacation Judge. RichardLondon agents, son, Marsh, and Co., Liverpool, sols. for pets. Sharpe, Pritchard, and Co., 12, New-ct, Carey-st, W.C. Notices of appearance by Aug. 8, to the pets., J. W. L. Allan, G. J. Allan, and E. M. Allan, trading as G. J. Allan and Co., at 28, Chapel-st, Liverpool, or their sols. or London agents. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL INSURANCE CORPORATION R. G. TICKLE AND SON LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Sept. 5, to E. J. SELWORTHY" STEAMSHIP COMPANY LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to WILLING AND CO. (MANCHESTER) LIMITED-Petition for winding-up to be WEST HARTLEPOOL SMALL DAMAGE STEAMSHIP INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION.--- CREDITORS UNDER ESTATES IN CHANCERY. LAST DAY OF PROOFS. HESS (Samuel), Canonbury and Norton Folgate. Sept. 30; T. W. Hall and Son, sols., 61, West Smithfield, E.C. Oct. 24; Parker, J., at 12.30. JENKINS (Benjamin George), West Norwood, Sept. 30; A. W. Timbrel!, of Timbrell and Deighton, sols., 44, King William-st, E.C. Oct. 16; Eve, J., at 12.30. RIDLEY (William), Consett. Aug. 26; J. Murray Aynsley, sol., Consett. Sept. 8; Registrar of Court of Chancery of County Palatine of Durham, 19, Elvet-bridge, at 11.30. CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. ARCHBOLD (Anna Jane), Gosforth. Aug. 22; W. T. Hindmarsh and Hardy, Alnwick. AUERBACH (Moritz), Lee Green. Aug. 31; Gush, Phillips, Walters, and Williams, 3, Finsbury-cir, E.C. ARMSTRONG (Joseph), Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Aug. 21; Hoyle. Shipley, and Hoyle, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. AMEY (George), Haslemere. Aug. 31; P. C. Burley, Petersfield. BRAMBLE (Henry James), St. Austell. Aug. 23; C. G. Brian, Plymouth. BEVAN (Charles Henry), Hastings. Aug. 28; F. W. Morgan, Hastings. BROADWOOD (Alfred Stephen), Bickenhall-mans, and Winslow. Sept. 4;' Collyer-Bristow, Curtis, Booth, Birks, and Langley, 4, Bedford-row, W.C. BECKINGHAM (Sarah), Gloucester. Aug. 9; H. W. Grimes, Gloucester. BYRNE (Eleanor Frances), Weston-super-Mare. Aug. 31; C. Elliott, CHAMBERS (Sydney), South Nutfield, and Threadneedle House, E.C. Aug. 28; Loughborough, Gedge, and Co., 23, Austin-friars, E.C. COSTER (Mary Ann), Newton Abbot. Aug. 25; Hacker and Michelmore, Newton Abbot. CHAMBERS (William), Burton-on-Trent. Aug. 19; O. Taylor, Burton-onTrent. CARTER (Edward), Edgbaston. Sept. 1; Smythe, Etches, and Jackson, Birmingham. CHANNON (Mary Elizabeth), Plymouth. Claims of creditors, next of kin, or others. Oct. 31; Adams and Croft, Plymouth. COOK (William Benjamin), Eastbourne. Aug. 14; A. W. Arnold, Eastbourne. COLE (Rev. Edward Maule), Wetwang. Sept. 1; Foster, Tonge, and Botterill, Great Driffield. COOPER (Thomas William George), Crick. Aug. 26; W. F. and W. Willoughby, Daventry. CRITCHLEY (Margaret), Rainhill. Aug. 21; H. Cross and Son, Prescot, Lancs. CHAPMAN (Thomas). Leeds. Sept. 1; H. Chapman, Leeds. CHARLES (Thomas John), Fulham. Aug. 26, H. W. Myatt, 25, Crutched friars. CROPPER (Hannah), Rochdale. Sept. 5; J. H. Chadwick, Rochdale. ELLIOTT (Rachel Mary), Clifton. Aug. 19; H. L. Evans, Bristol. FREAKLEY (John Charles), Westcliff, Southend-on-Sea. Aug. 19; Wood, FAWKES (George), Great Crosby. Aug. 31; Miller, Taylor, and Holmes, Liverpool. GIBSON (William), Braunston. Aug. 26; W. F. and W. Willoughby, Daventry. GOLDSMID (Isabel), 20, Portman-sq. Sept. 1; Waterhouse and Co., 1, New-ct, Lincoln's-inn. W.C. GOLDSMITH (Margaret), Chiswick. Claims of creditors, next of kin, and others. Oct. 31; Clarke, Calkin, and Son, 25, John-st, Bedford-row. GREENACRE (Sir Benjamin Wesley), Durban, Natal, South Africa. Aug. 22; Watkin Williams, Steel, and Hart, Capel House, 54, New Broad-st, E.C. GIESON (James Henry), Clapham Common, and Portugal-st-bldgs, Lincoln's-inn. Sept. 1: Gibson, Usher, and Co., Portugal-stbldgs, Lincoln's-inn, W.C. GALLOWAY (Arthur Walton), Surbiton. Sept. 18; S. James, 60, Lincoln'sinn-flds. GOODMAN (Thomas), Newton Abbot. Aug. 25; Hacker and Michelmore, Newton Abbot. HALL (Lucy), Ashton-under-Lyne. Sept. 1; H. D. Judson, Manchester. HENRY (Mitchell), Leamington. Aug. 10; Field and Sons, Leamington. HEADRIDGE (Thomas), Leeds. Sept. 6; W. and E. H. Foster, Leeds. JARRETT (John William Metcalf), Howard Hotel, Norfolk-st, Strand. and and Theobald's-rd, Grav's-inn. Aug. 22; M. L. R. Koch, at the office of S. Gissing Skelton, 1, Lincoln's-inn-flds, W.C. LOADER (Sidney), Hook, Odiham. Aug. 22; Lamb, Brooks, and Co., Odiham. LEAR (Emily), Newton Abbot. Aug. 25; Hacker and Michelmore, Newton LAWTON (Arthur), Blackpool. Aug. 26; J. Todd, 18, Birley-st, Blackpool. MORRISON (James), Canonbury. Aug. 31; Letts Brothers, 8, Bartlett'sbldgs, E.C. MASTERS (Jane). East Dulwich. Aug. 31; Hird and Thatcher, 11, Adamst, Strand, W.C. MENNELL (Zebulon), Royal-cres, Holland Park-av. Sept. 1; Gasquet, Met- MEADOWS (George Holmes), Hull. Sept. 1; Locking, Holdich, and MILNER (Samuel Gregory), Mobberley. Sept. 1; Boote, Edgar, Grace, and Rylands, Manchester. PARKER (Ann Eliza), Leeds. Aug. 19; Simpson, Thomas, and Curtis, PINNEY (Richard Edward), Wareham. Sept. 22; Walker, Martineau, and PAYNE (George), Overdale, Durban, South Africa. Aug. 25; Watkin SOLOMON (Rebecca), Liverpool. Aug. 19; Slater, Heelis, Williamson, and Co., Manchester. SANDERS (Katharine). Lustleigh. Aug. 25; Hacker and Michelmore, Newton Abbot. SHARP (John), Beechburn House, near Crook. Aug. 31; T. and W. G. Maddison, Durham. SMITH (John Peacock), Birkenhead. Aug. 7; Peacock, Gregory, and Son, Liverpool. SNEE (Julia). Deptford. Aug. 18; McColm and Brooke, 3, Lewishambridge, S.E. SMITH (Amelia Eddy), Oxford. Aug. 21; Mills and Morley, 38, Lincoln'sinn-filds, W.C. SCANTLEBURY (George Thomas), Brondesbury. Sept. 4; Stileman and Neate, 16, Southampton-st, Bloomsbury, W.C. SMITH (Robert James), Derby. Aug. 21; Beale and Co., Birmingham. STEELE (William Frederick), Formby. Aug. 31; F. S. Barley, at the offices of Pennington and Higson, Liverpool. SIMISTER (Edwin), Chorlton-on-Medlock. Aug. 21; Sharratt and Saxon, SMITH (Louisa), West Norwood. Sept. 1; Loxley, Elam, and Gardner, 80, TREADWELL (Henry John), Charing Cross-rd, and St. John's Wood. WHEELLER (Caroline), Camden-rd. Aug. 31; Lyell and Betenson, 4, Lloyd's-av, E.C. WATERS (Albert Hammond), Cambridge. Aug. 31; Ginn and Co., Cambridge. WHITE (James), Weston-super-Mare. Sept. 1; S. C. Smith, Weston-super- Strand. Aug. 21; Scadding and Bodkin, 23, Sept. 2; W. E. Singleton, 37, Essex-st, WALL (Ebenezer), Neithrop. Aug. 21; Fairfax and Barfield, Banbury. WILLIAMS (Hannah), Rhyl. Aug. 25; J. Pierce-Lewis, Rhyl. WRIGHT (Samuel Henry), Lingfield and Sidcup. Sept. 14; J. Bartlett and Son. 26 and 27, Bush-la, E.C. WEBB (Frederick Robert), Sidcup. Sept. 14; J. Bartlett and Son, 26 and 27, Bush-la, E.C. YEOMANS (Jobson), Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Aug. 23; E. Clark, Newcastleon-Tyne. LAW SOCIETIES. HARDWICKE SOCIETY. ANNUAL DINNER. THE annual dinner of the Hardwicke Society was held on Tuesday, at the Café Royal, the president, Mr. Herbert du Parcq, taking the chair. The society entertained Herr Heinroth, Mitgl. d. H.-B. Kronsyndikus. President des Kammergerichts, and other members of the German Bench and Bar. The guests included Land-richter_von Simson, Kammergerichts Dr. Buresch, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Mersey of Toxteth. Lord de Villiers (Chief Justice of South Africa), Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Otto Beit. After the loyal toasts, the Lord Chief Justice proposed the health of "Our Guests," which he said was the toast of the evening, and with which he would specially connect the guests from Germany. Between the British nation and the great German nation there should be nothing but good feeling. When one met, as one had the privilege of meeting from time to time, distinguished members of the German Empire, distinguished in science, in literature, in medicine, in philosophy, and in law, one was always struck, in the pleasant intercourse which ensued, by the consideration of the many bonds and strands of opinion which existed between the two peoples, and by the desire for the cultivation of what was noble and what was good, and for the rejection of all that was false and shoddy and tawdry. And certainly his opinion of the German people, formed from many years of observation and knowing them well, was that they taught us thoroughness in everything that they did. He did not propose to speak at any length of the great judicial system which prevailed in Germany, but it was so different from our own that a few notes of contrast might be of interest. It was a very magnificent creation, and when it was remembered that barely fifty years ago, perhaps barely forty years ago, the condition of the administration of justice was in comparative chaos, the present judicial system in the German Empire reflected the greatest credit both upon the Government and upon the wise men who had formed it and embodied it and brought it into being. Up to the year 1860 or 1850, or he ought to say 1870. the German Empire consisted of a number of States, all bound together by the bond of State, but still having their separate systems and separate administrations of justice, and all kinds of differences in connection with the appointment of the judges and the administration of the law prevailed. All these differences had been swept by the German jurists into the dustbins of the past, and from 1879 there hed existed the great judicial system of Germany which, whether they agreed with it or not, was calculated to form an object lesson to the world. There were so many points of contrast between that and the English system that it was difficult to express one's admiration, except from the outside, but the German Empire had formed a system whereby branches of the High Court were brought to every locality. Some of the ardent reformers in this country thought that something of the kind might with advantage be done here. He would not trespass on that thorny subject, but would simply say that he did not agree with them. But, looking at the German system as a whole. all the courts in one system went from the top to the bottom of civil procedure. The system was the embodiment of the principle of the highest court being represented by judges in every part of Germanyhe was not speaking, of course, of the German Empire outside Germany-with the result that there was homogeneity, a united system, which from the German point of view left very little to be desired. There was one very curious consequencenamely, the enormous number of judges there were in the German Empire. He was told that there were in European Germany no les than 8000 judges, and that there were in Prussia alone no less than 5000 judges. He hoped there would be a very large exodus of members of the English Bar to go over to Germany and away from their scanty earnings here to qualify for the post of judge; but he must warn those who thought of doing eo-and here we might take example from Germany-that they would have a very severe training to go through. It was an incident of this great system that there was the same training for the judges as for the members of the Bar, and it was a training which included several examinations and the taking of several degrees in law, and occupied something like six or seven years. Therefore it was no light matter to qualify for being a judge in Germany. Of course there must be, and there always had been, among leading lawyers in Germany a very great deal of criticism upon the system as far as the actual management was concerned. Probably we should think, and, he dared say, our German friends, the judges, would not differ, that the salaries of the judges in Germany were wholly inadequate, and possibly the German judges might think that 2500 judges with double salaries would do the work as well as 5000 with the existing salaries; but naturally that was a matter which he would not enter into, as it was a subject, perhaps, of criticism and difference of opinion. But it was remarkable with regard to the system that, practically speaking, the judges in Germany, as was the case in some other countries, such as France, were trained to be judges from the time when they started on their professional career that was to say, the education of a man to be a barrister or judge being the same, he, at the end when he was qualified, elected either to be a solicitor and barrister combined or to be a judge, and although at times judges were chosen from the Bar, it was a very rare occurrence, happening, perhape, but once in ten years. There, again, it would be seen at once that the two systems, the English and the German, were hopelessly apart. We thought we had the experience of centuries behind us, and that the English system of the judges being chosen from the Bar was the best-he hoped he would never live to see any change in that respect-but we must admire the thoroughness of the German system, which contemplated a man choosing a judicial career from the time he was qualified either to be an advocate or a judge. In Germany, promotion took place from the inferior courts to the superior courts. It was a promotion in judicial rank and position. That was a system which had produced a great deal of criticism. There were certain incidents in connection with the judges in Germany that he thought we might, perhaps, copy with advantage here. He would only mention two. One was that the judges were only expected to work two days, and in some cases only one day, a week. He wondered what the House of Commons would say if the judges announced that they were only going to work every other day in the future. There was another most excellent practice, which he really did commend to the English Bar, and that was that the judges might fine, and frequently did fine, a barrister for contempt, He was told that the fine was usually £5, which went to the State. It would be seen that this system of German judicial practice had been thought out in the minutest detail, and, whether we considered our own system best or not, we must admire the thorough spirit which had actuated those who, in a period of something like thirty or forty years, had brought this system to such a high point of efficacy from their own point of view. In Bome of the Courts of Appeal in Germany there were 88 many 89 120 judges and twenty presidents. One could not grasp the idea, and our German friends were astonished at the amount of work which was got through in this country with so small a number of judges. The number of High Court and County Court judges and stipendiary magistrates in this country did not probably exceed 200, as compared with the thousands in Germany. The guests from Germany were present to indicate the good feeling that they entertained for the English Bench, and particularly for the English Bar. It had been his privilege during the past fifty years to know not a few distinguished German judges and distinguished German lawyers, and he had been struck by their learning, their refinement, and their broad-mindedness. He was satisfied that, in the higher ranks, the German system did develop judges of high position, of very great learning, and of very wide knowledge of affairs. No doubt men selected as judges from the Bar, as was the case in England, must have had knowledge of affairs, and it must be difficult for those who had gone through life in the position of judges to keep au courant with the affairs of the world, but he was satisfied that many of the German judges did so. Such gatherings as the present made one feel that men of the law, who were working for the good of their respective countries in the highest branches of legal procedure, ought to be friends and ought to interchange ideas and get the one from the other experience which would be valuable to them in the further prosecution of their work. He trusted and believed that, day by day, month by month, and year by year, the bonds of friendship between Great Britain and Germany would grow closer and closer. Herr Heinroth, who spoke in German, in returning thanks, said that England had given to the German Gneist the foundation of that monumental edifice, the Prussian law of droit administratif, under whose sheltering roof the citizens of Germany enjoyed the same peaceful rule of law in their relations to the executive as was the case in England, and they would never be able to forget that this inestimable treasure had come to them from England's rich hoard of legal traditions. A powerful movement in favour of a change in the procedure and the appointment of judges in accordance with the English model had existed for many years in Germany. This movement was the result of a keen anxiety for the welfare of the administration of justice, and it had by no means ceased. He would not attempt to enter upon a detailed examination of the merits and demerits of that movement, but he was one of its opponents. He loved and reverenced the legal system of his country, and believed it to be the equal of that of any other country; but he must admit that in Germany they were overwhelmed by too elaborate a system of appeals, and in this respect the wise restraint observed by the English must be recognised as superior. But, whilst England had this advantage, he held that Germany had advanced¡a step ahead in fixing the rules of material law. The question whether or not the law should be codified had been settled from the reign of the greatest of the ancestors of the present Kaiserthe German Emperor, King of Prussia-ever since the days when the codification of the Prussian civil law W28 first taken in hand. The idea that it was advisable to form the rules of private law into the shape of paragraphs had, since those days, conquered the whole of Germany, and from the beginning of the present century all Germany had possessed one code of written, clearly defined private law, As a son of the province of Hanover, he (Herr Heinroth) was brought up under the old Roman common law, and by far the greater part of his own activity as a judge consisted in interpreting the old Roman common law, so that he loved it as he loved his own youth; and yet he should never care to see it conjured back to displace the German code of civil law. He would venture to proclaim his belief that even a fanatical admiration of a code had its advantages, and might in England have this particular effect, that the proverbial glorious uncertainty of the law would vanish for ever. In the eloquent words of one of the Chancellors of France of the ancien régime, the profession of the advocate was as old as the courts, as noble as virtue, and as necessary as justice itself. This was true, at least, in the latter two respects, but true only of those advocates who were really what they ought to be-the assistants of the tribunal before which they appeared. It was the well-deserved reputation of the English barrister that he took this, the noblest view of his profession, for his governing ideal. All homage then to a country in which judges and advocates might be compared to two troops of soldiers, marching apart, but fighting united, to conquer any enemy who might try to undermine the foundation of a law-abiding society. "The discordant airs of political song had no place in such a gathering as the present, but he might be permitted one short observation of quite universal application. There existed an inexorable law which obtained among the civilised nations of the world, the law which says Inter arma leges silent. In the words of Shakespeare :Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, But greatly to find quarrel in a straw When honour's at the stake." 66 But that two nations closely connected by common ideals and material interests, closely connected by blood, should start upon a lawsuit without any deep cause of quarrel and carry it to the rough arbitrament of the sword until both parties have shed their life blood, that, he maintained, was madness. Might it never happen that the laws were silenced between England and Germany. That was the fervent hope, the opino communis, of all German lawyers, and they trusted that the same faith was held by their colleagues in this country. Lord Shaw proposed the toast of "The Hardwicke Society." He observed that if the lawyer wished for success in his profession he must base it on sound learning-that was the thing which made Germany a lesson to us all. The English Bench was distinguished above all others in the world for sound sense in its procedure, and sound sense must be added to sound learning. He was no great believer in argument; he was a believer in a clear, plain, trustworthy statement, and the man that was capable of delivering that was the best arguer-the plain, clear statement on behalf of his client which made the court trust him and made the client respect him, if he was to be so respected, as a thoroughly trustworthy man. The President having responded, Mr. T. M. Healy, K.Č., M.P., submitted the toast of "The Bench," speaking of the advantage it was to a judge that he had been a member of the House of Commons. Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, in returning thanks, said that it was true that Germany had a code, but it was impossible that any code, however ably and carefully drawn, should cover every case which arose. What happened, he took it, in the German courts, just as much as in our own, was that cases arose which the code did not exactly cover, and it was necessary to ask, in applying the code to such cases, what it was that justice required. In England there was greater freedom, perhap3, owing to the unwritten common law, but still there were the statutes to deal with. Statutes were not so drawnin fact, could not be so drawn-39 to make them apply to every case that arose. Then, in applying the sections of the statutes, one asked, to assist oneself in their interpretation, what would be the just view to take in a particular case, and, he took it, that, whether there was a code or whether there was the common law and statutes, ultimately one had always to fall back upon the spirit of justice. The adminis tration of justice by the Bench had made the English people love the spirit of justice, whether it was expressed in precise words in codes, or in statutes, or in any other way. Lord de Villiers (Chief Justice of South Africa) proposed the toast of "The Bar." He remarked that codification in Germany was a matter of modern creation, but by the time the German Code had become as old as the Code Napoléon it would be found that commentaries upon it would have become as numerous as was the case with that code. After a code had become comparatively old it ceased to have all the simplicity which so many attached to a simplified code. If he were asked what qualities distinguished the Bar of England above others, he would say fearlessness, independence, and integrity. If he were asked what had most raised the Bar in England, he would say the separation of the two branches of the Profession, because, under the present system, the advocate could always exercise a quasi-judicial capacity, and it was for this reason, he thought, that on the elevation of the barrister to the Bench he at once took up the position and became a judge of the first quality. When one considered the great experience of our judges and how the greatest judges had risen from the Bar, there was every reason why the members of the Bar should take courage. Mr. Dudley Stewart-Smith, K C., returned thanks, and the proceedings terminated. MEDICO-LEGAL SOCIETY. ANNUAL DINNER. THE annual dinner of the Medico-Legal Society was held at the Holborn Restaurant on Thursday, the 20th inst., Sir John Tweedy, L.C.D., F.R.C.S. (president), taking the chair. Among the guests were Mr. Rigby Swift, M.P., Earl Russell, Sir W. Collins, D.L., M.D., F.R.C.S., Sir F. Hewitt, Mr. Charters Symonds, M.S., F.R.C.S., Sir Henry Morris, Bart, Messrs. J. B. Lawford, F.R.C.S., S. F. Cowell, B.A, Dr. Wm. Turner, Messrs. Cutler A. Jones, C. Herbert-Smith, LL D, Dr. F. J. Smith, Dr. Scott, Dr. F. J. Waldo, Dr. Perkins, Dr. Crookshank, Dr. Pernet, Dr. Spilsbury, Dr. Robinson, Dr. W. H. Willcox, Messrs. Howell Evans, G. C. Gardiner, M. Wimpfheimer, LL.B., Walter C. Williams, Richard King, Walter Asten, D. Cotes-Preedy, M.A., LL.M., L.S.A., P. W. Pegge, R. Henslowe Wellington, Godding, R. J. Stilwell, Walter Schröder (hon. treasurer), and Roland Burrows, M.A., LL.D. (hon. secretary.) The loyal toasts having been given from the chair and duly honoured, Mr. Rigby Swift, M.P., proposed the toast "The Medico-Legal Society." He observed that the society, beginning in 1902, had gone on increasing in numbers and in prosperity since that date. He looked to the future of the society with great hope and with great pleasure because of the fact that it was one which recognised the interdependence of two great professions. He saw in the society the realisation of the fact that the legal and the medical, or the medical and the legal, professions were, at any rate to a large extent, dependent upon each other. The members of both professions were, with increasing frequency found together in the courts of law endeavouring, and with very great skill and ability, to assist in the administration of justice, and it was the fact that it was recognised that there must be an interchange of ideas on medical jurisprudence between lawyers and doctors which had caused the society to come into existence. In connection with such matters as cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acte, often the points which arose were rather on medical than on legal questions. Referring to the attitude the medical profession were taking with regard to the Insurance Bill, he said that everybody would admit that if it was to be a success it must have the co-operation of the doctore, and he thought that every body would be agreed that the doctors would co-operate in carrying out that Bill when it became an Act, provided that the terms were included in it which were just and fair to themselves, and that it was made quite clear that they would mintain their independence and that they would be adequately remunerated for the work they did. If that W83 done, he was confident that they would assist in carrying out the Act, which contained in it important principles which would be of great advantage to the community. He coupled with the toast the name of their president, Sir John Tweedy, who had that day been elected for the third time consecutively, and who had taken care that he should no: be elected for the fourth time by suggesting an alteration in the rules which had been adopted at the annual meeting held that afternoon. The President, in returning thanks, said he was glad to be able to state that the society continued to prosper and to grow in numbers and importance. The papers that had been read at its meetings during the past year had attracted a good deal of interest, and the discussions upon them had been animated. At the general meeting that afternoon Mr. Justice Horridge, he had much pleasure in stating, Lad been elected one of the vice-presidents, and he hoped that, as On the years went by, the society would have many more of the members of the higher branches of the Legal Profession joining its ranks. behalf of the medical members of the society he wished the Legal Profession increased prosperity, because he foresaw the time when the medical members would entirely depend upon the goodwill and generosity of the legal members. Whatever turn legislation might take it always brought grist to the legal mill. No sooner was a new law passed but the acutest and subtlest members of the Legal Profession set themselves to work to find out what it meant, or whether it meant anything at all. That was all business. But in the medical profession its members were continually striving to outdo esch other in discovering some method of preventing disease-in other words, of depriving themselves of a professional existence. Already they had practically abolished malaria and other parasitical diseases, typhoid fever was rapidly going, and as for those domestic ailments which constituted the staple practice of the old-fashioned practitioner and the treatment of which afforded a large part of Lie income, they had almost disappeared. Now they were trying to do away with consumption, and he supposed that in the past the attendance on members of families afflicted with consumption, or so-called consumption, constituted a very large part of the general practitioner's duties. All the science, all the skill, all the powers of research of the medical profession were combined to eradicate these diseases, and what the effect would be upon the incomes of the members of the profession he would leave to them to imagine. A great number of medical men seriously believed that, if the Insurance Bill passed in its present form, a large part of the medical practitioners of the country would cease to have any occupation. Now they would see the point of his great interest in the increasing prosperity of the Legal Profession. He saw before him the advent of a golden age for lawyers, who would be increased in wealth and overflowing in generosity and charity, and the future existence of the society would depend upon the philanthropy and good nature of its legal membera paying the annual subscriptions of the impecunious doctors. was Sir William Collins, D.L., M.D., F.R.C.S. (the first president of the society), proposed the toast of "Our Guests." He observed that there was really no necessity for the society having any guests at all, because it threw its doors open not only to medical men and lawyers, but also to the intelligent layman. In the earlier days of the society it was said that the medical and the legal professions differed so completely that there was very little common territory between them. He could not help thinking that, even in the brief years intervening since the birth of the society, ample evidence, both from the administrative and still more from the legislative point of view, had been afforded of the large area of territory which common alike to the science of medicine and the profession of the law, and which appealed largely and increaingly to the intelligent layman, who W88 always welcome to attend the society's meeting3. He believed that the critics and the supporters of the Insurance Bill would equally admit that legislation with regard to so important a topic was going perhaps rather too quickly, and that it was not a subject that lent itselt to hustling. He was not at all sure that a very valuable function for the society to perform would not be to collect the best authoritative information in a case of this kind, and to discuss it in its meetings, in which the doctor, the lawyer, and the lay man were present and took part, and, if possible, to put into a digested form capable of more ready use by Ministers of the Crown the facts affecting such important questions as those dealt with in the Insurance Bill, in the amiable object of which, he took it, everybody concurred, but with regard to which, as it was discussed in detail, it was seen that almost every detail involved a principle. And it was because those principles had not yet been adequately discussed by the legal and medical professions, or by a large number of the laity, that difficulties arose from clause to clause and great uncertainty as to what was to be the eventual form of the Bill. It was a great pleasure to see to what an extent the society had grown since its birth in 1902, and he was hopeful, from the fact that there were present members of both Houses of Parliament, that they were prepared to take up those great question s to which the society had addressed itself in the past and which still remained undealt with by the Legislature, such as birth certification and the reform of coroner's law and of the law relating to the admi nistration of anaesthetics, so that these might be put on a proper footing. With regard to such questions as national insurance, the society would be glad to place itself at the ausposal of the Crown in giving information. Mr. Charters Symonds, M.S., F.R.C.S. (president of the Medical Society), having returned thanks, Mr. C. Herbert Smith, LL.D., gave the toast of "The President." The President, in acknowledging the compliment, said that the council of the College of Surgeons had very readily responded to a request made to them by the society that a department of their famous museum should be set aside for maters of medico-legal interest. It was hoped that in course of time London would possess a medico legal museum at least approaching, if not quite equalling, the famous museum in Edinburgh. ANNUAL MEETING. F The annual meeting was held previously to the dinner, the Presid:nt taking the chair. Mr. Walter Schröder (hon. treasurer) presented the auditors' report. He said the state of the finances was satisfactory, and that the new year was being started with a balance of £107 in hand. He moved the adoption of the report. Dr. F. J. Smith tecouded the mction, and it was carried. |