with them. This might well take place by a warrant in the summons, including warrant to dismantle. If the action is properly in rem, there is no need to found jurisdiction against anyone, the ship which is the res being fixed within the jurisdiction by its arrest. (5) Owners who appear and resist the action should have a personal decree granted against them for the unsatisfied balance of the claim. (6) Provision should be made for the release of the ship on bail as at present. (7) The present practice as to the various warrants to inventory and sell, and the present procedure with regard to the sale, and distribution of proceeds, appear to be effective, and should be incorporated in any rules made. (8) The decree adjudging the ship to the purchaser should give the purchaser a clear title free from all unsatisfied claims. These recommendations, or such modifications of them as might commend themselves to those in authority, could easily be embodied in an Act of Sederunt from which practitioners would know at once what steps were necessary, and what were mere superfluities. The present position of such procedure, with its utter lack of guidance, its varieties of forms of action, its absence of clear principles of jurisdiction, and its hopeless entanglement of the arrest of a ship with the other varieties of arrestment, leading as it does to much superfluous procedure ob majorem cautelam and to unnecessary expense, is surely quite indefensible, and calls for reform. held in Edinburgh and Glasgow on 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st ulto., and the results have now been intimated. For the First Examination in General Knowledge, which qualifies for apprenticeship, 32 applicants presented themselves. Thirteen of these have passed or qualified in all the subjects, and 12 have passed or qualified in two subjects. For the Second Examination in General Knowledge 41 candidates entered. One of these passed in four subjects, 1 in three, 9 in two, and 15 in one subject. The papers of the candidates in this examination were as follows: Mathematics 15, passed 5; Logic 11, passed 5; Latin 19, passed 8; French 18, passed 7; Bookkeeping 21, passed 15. Since the Examinations held in July last 21 candidates have received certificates of exemption from the First Examination in General Knowledge in respect of holding intermediate certificates of the Scottish Education Department or other substitute certificates; and the Examiners at their meeting held last week granted certificates of exemption from the First Examination in General Knowledge to 13 applicants who have served in the Naval or Military Forces, and who have satisfied them as to their general education for entering upon indentures of apprenticeship in terms of the Act of Sederunt of 19th March 1919. At the quarterly Examination in Law, which was held in Edinburgh last week, 35 candidates presented themselves for examination. Thirty of these were examined in all the subjects, and 24 passed, and 5 graduates in law holding the degree of LL.B. or B.L. of the Scottish Universities were examined in Court procedure, and all passed. SCOTTISH LEGAL APPOINTMENTS.-Mr Alexander Maitland has been appointed AdvocateDepute in the Sheriff Court, in succession to Mr A. Martin Laing, promoted to be Sheriff-Substitute at Kirkwall, and Mr Archibald Crawford has been appointed counsel in ultimus hæres causes, in succession to Mr Maitland. IT is with regret that we record the death of Mr Thomas Craig, S.S.C., a familiar figure in Edinburgh legal circles. Mr Craig was a partner in the firm of Cornillon, Craig & Thomas, W.S., 15 South Charlotte Street, and had been a member of the S.S.C. Society since 1890. THE firm of Messrs Kennaway & Co., solicitors and estate agents, Auchterarder, of which the late Mr J. P. Kennaway, of Kenwood Park, Auchterarder, was the sole partner, is being continued under the same name by his elder son, Captain C. G. Kennaway, M.A., LL.B., W.S., who has returned from Cairo, where he held an appointment under the Egyptian Government in the Ministry of Justice there. WE regret to announce the death at 194 Grange Loan, Edinburgh, of Mr William Whyte, S.S.C. Mr Whyte was a son of the late John Whyte, J.P., ex-Provost of Forfar, and was a partner in the firm of Stewart & Whyte, W.S., 61 Frederick Street, Edinburgh. He was admitted to the S.S.C. Society in 1887. SIR GERALD AUBREY GOODMAN, K.C., Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, died at Bath on 20th January. He was born in 1862, and LAW AGENTS' EXAMINATIONS. The half was educated at Lodge School and Harrison yearly Examinations in General Knowledge con- College, Barbados, and at University College, ducted by the Examiners of Law Agents were | London. He was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1885, and, returning to Barbados, practised there for some years, ultimately being appointed Solicitor-General of the island in 1906 and Attorney-General of the Straits Settlements in 1913. He became Chief Judicial Commissioner of the Federated Malay States in 1919, and received a knighthood last year. SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893 (56 & 57 VICT. CAP. 71), SECTIONS 4, 10, 61.-A purchaser, under a contract whereby he was to receive a quantity of cotton yarn in weekly consignments of specified amount, continued to accept delivery of short consignments after the date when delivery should have been complete, but complained in writing of this delay and finally refused to take further deliveries. In an action by the seller for THE LATE MR J. SMITH CLARK, SS.C.- damages for failure to take delivery, held (1) We regret to announce the sudden death, at that though time was of the essence of the conBanchory, of Mr J. Smith Clark, S.S.C., Auditor tract, the purchaser having impliedly waived, by of the Court of Session. Mr Smith Clark his letters, his right to insist that the contract received his early education in Dundee, and also was ended, was bound by such waiver; (2) that there underwent his primary training in law as he was estopped from now maintaining that the an apprentice to Mr Haliburton, solicitor. In contract had come to an end at date when 1868 he came to Edinburgh, and after some years, delivery should have been completed; (3) that during which he attended the law classes and a new agreement must be implied, from the served in a law office, he entered the employ- purchaser's correspondence, to cancel which ment of Mr Lawrence Macara, W.S., with whom notice that delivery must be complete within a he subsequently went into partnership. In reasonable time was necessary.-K.B. Div. 1897 the business was carried on under the (M'Cardie J.).—30th June 1920. name of J. & D. Smith Clark. Mr Smith Clark was subsequently appointed Keeper of the Register of Sasines, and ultimately in 1910 became Auditor of the Court of Session in succession to Mr James MacIntosh. Mr Smith Clark gained many academic honours during his legal course at the University, and was a wellknown debater in the Scots Law Society. One of his sons, Mr J. Smith Clark, advocate, was killed during the war, and another, Mr W. Smith Clark, who was a member of the firm of J. & D. Smith Clark, died recently. DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH In re the Ex-Tsar of Bulgaria. CROWN-ALIEN ENEMY-RIGHT TO FORFEIT PRIVATE PROPERTY OF ALIEN ENEMY-TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT ACTS 1914 (5 GEO. V. CAP. 12), SECTIONS 1 (1), 2 (1) AND 1916 (5 & 6 GEO. V. CAP. 105), SECTION 4 (1).Held that the provisions of the above-cited statutes had brought to an end the right of the Crown, which had hitherto existed at common law, to seize and forfeit the private property of the subject of an enemy state. Decisions of Eve J. and P. O. Lawrence J. reversed.-Court of Appeal (Lord Sterndale M.R., Warrington and Younger L.JJ.).-30th July 1920. In re Gardiner-Huey v. Cunnington. TRUST-GIFT OF LIFE INTEREST OF PERSONAL ESTATE TO HUSBAND BY WILL-INTESTACY AS TO HUSBAND AND UNATTESTED MEMORANDUM BY - HER ENFORCEABLE TRUST. A testatrix by her will gave her husband for his life her whole estate, which was personal, "knowing that he will carry out my wishes," and appointed him sole executor. The husband died intestate a few days after his wife. A signed but unattested document by the testatrix was found, stating that she wished "the money I leave my husband" to go to certain nieces and a nephew, and there was evidence that she had expressed the same intention in the presence of her husband. Held that the next-of-kin of husband took capital of the estate as trustee for the persons to whom testatrix with assent of her husband intended it should go.-Court of Appeal (Lord Sterndale M.R., Warrington and Younger L.JJ.).—8th July 1920. naturally from bringing the benzol into the premises, which was an act within the scope of the servant's employment, and that although the lighting of a cigarette was not within the scope of the employment, the defendants were liable for breach of contract.-K.B. Div. (Horridge J.). -9th July 1920. British Steamship Co. v. The King. Green v. British India Steam Navigation Co. SHIP - CHARTER-PARTY-POLICY OF MARINE INSURANCE "WARLIKE OPERATIONS." Held (affirming decision of Court of Appeal, 1920 S.L.T. 3) that the expression "warlike operations" used in a charter-party or a policy of marine insurance does not cover navigating without lights under Admiralty orders or (Viscount Cave and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline dissenting) obeying the orders of the officer in command of a convoy where the occupation of the vessel is peaceful and there is no actual or threatened attack.-House of Lords (Viscount Cave, Lords Atkinson, Shaw of Dunfermline, Sumner, and Wrenbury).—12th July 1920. staircase. The evidence shewed the station employees warned off children whenever seen, but that they returned when unobserved. Held that the plaintiff knew he had no business to be on the premises and that he was a trespasser and not a licensee.-Court of Appeal (Bankes, Warrington, and Scrutton L.JJ.).—25th July 1920. White v. Riley and Wood. TRADE UNION CONSPIRACY TO INJURE EMPLOYEES PROCURING DISMISSAL OF FELLOW WORKMAN WHO REFUSED TO LEAVE HIS OWN UNION TO JOIN THEIRS-TRADE DISPUTE—TRADE DISPUTES ACT 1906 (6 EDW. VII. CAP. 47).— The plaintiff was a member of the Workers' Union and was in the same employment as the defendants, who were or dants, who were members of the Curriers' Society. At a meeting of the employees, who were all members of the latter union, a strike was resolved on unless the plaintiff was dismissed, and the second defendant, who was a member of the executive of the Curriers' Society, assured the men, without the authority of the executive as required by the rules, that they would be supported in case of a strike. The first defendant, as oldest employee, thereafter informed the employers of the intention of the men to strike if the plaintiff was not dismissed and to indemnify the employers for the week's wages payable to him in lieu of notice. In an action of damages for procuring a breach of the plaintiff's contract of service, held (reversing decision of Astbury J., 1920 S.L.T. 135) (1) that statement by a number of workmen that they would not work with another man was not actionable, and (2) that there was no intention on part of defendants to procure a breach of contract, as the men had undertaken to find the week's wages themselves.-Court of Appeal (Lord Sterndale M.R., Warrington, and Younger L.JJ.).—26th July 1920. FOREIGN CURRENCY-RATE OF EXCHANGE-DATE TO BE TAKEN.-Where the plaintiff, a merchant in Milan, obtained judgment against an English shipping agent for non-delivery of goods in Italy, held that damages fell to be assessed at such a sum in sterling as would give a proper sum of compensation in lire at rate of exchange prevailing at the date when the goods should have been delivered.-Court of Appeal (Bankes and Scrutton L.JJ., and Eve J.)-12th July ARMY ENLISTMENT PRIVATE SOLDIERCONTRACT ENFORCEABILITY BY SOLDIER.-A corporal, by petition of right, prayed for payment of balance of pay which he alleged to be owing to him under the conditions of his enlistment. Held that the species of contract which the private soldier on enlistment enters into with the Sovereign is not enforceable by the soldier in a Court of law.-K.B. Div. (Acton J.).—23rd July 1920. Hardy v. Central London Railway Co. ACT OF SEDERUNT REGULATING APPEALS UNDER SEC- EDINBURGH, 2nd February 1921. The Lords of Council and Session, considering that it is necessary to regulate the proceedings in appeals by any person who feels aggrieved by the decision of the Scottish Insurance CommisINFANT. The plaintiff, an infant, was injured sioners on any question arising under section 66 while playing in the booking hall of a station, (1) (a) of the National Health Insurance Act by a strap which worked a mechanical moving | 1911, as amended by section 10 of the National NEGLIGENCE LICENSEE OR TRESPASSER Health Insurance Act 1920, Enact and Declare as follows viz. : 1. A notice of appeal shall be lodged, within twenty-one days of the date on which the decision of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners was intimated to the appellant, with the Clerk to the Lord Ordinary appointed to hear such appeals. 2. Such notice of appeal, which may be in the form of the Schedule hereto, shall set forth the determination appealed against, and the date on which the determination was intimated to the appellant, and shall contain a crave for service on the Scottish Insurance Commissioners on eight days' induciæ, and for an order on the said Commissioners to lodge in process within such inducice a statement of the facts on which their determination proceeded, together with a copy of any regulations in accordance with which such determination was made. 3. Within eight days of the date of the production in process by the said Commissioners of such statement of facts, and regulations (if any), the appellant shall lodge with the Clerk of the Lord Ordinary a note setting forth the question or questions of law submitted by him on appeal. 4. The Lord Ordinary shall proceed as may be necessary and proper to dispose of the question or questions of law so submitted, and, without prejudice to all other powers competent to him, may order further or amended statements of fact to be produced by the Commissioners, and may allow the question or questions of law to be altered, added to or amended on the motion of both or either of the parties, if that is necessary to enable the true question between the appellant and the Commissioners to be decided. 5. The notice of appeal, the statement of facts, the note of questions in law, and any other documents that may be produced need not be printed unless and until the Lord Ordinary shall otherwise order. And the Lords appoint this Act to be entered in the Books of Sederunt and to be printed and published in common form. date of service to lodge in the process herein a statement of the facts on which said determination proceeded, and a copy of the regulations (if any) in accordance with which the same was made. ACT OF SEDERUNT REGULATING APPEALS AND REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT 1920 (10 & 11 GEO. V. CAP. 30). EDINBURGH, 3rd February 1921. The Lords of Council and Session, under and by virtue of the powers conferred by section 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920, Do hereby Enact and Declare as follows: 1. (a) Appeals under section 10 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1920, by persons aggrieved by the decision of the Minister on any question arising under section 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d), of the said Act shall be by petition to the Lord Ordinary appointed by the Lord President to hear such appeals. (b) Such petition shall be presented within twenty-one days of the date of the intimation of the decision to the appellant; it shall set forth the decision appealed against and state the date on which it was intimated to the appellant; it shall contain an articulate statement of the facts relevant to the decision of the appeal and a crave for service on the Minister on eight days' induciæ. (c) The Lord Ordinary shall thereafter proceed in the petition summarily in such manner as shall be necessary and proper, provided that the petition and any answer, productions and proof need not be printed unless and until the Lord Ordinary shall otherwise order. 2. (a) Reference by the Minister under section 1 (2) of the said Act shall be by petition to the Lord Ordinary appointed by the Lord President to decide questions so referred for decision. (b) Such petition shall set forth the question referred for decision, and shall contain an articulate statement of the circumstances in which the question has arisen, and a crave for service upon the person or one of the persons as between whom and the Minister the question has arisen on eight days' inducia. (c) The Lord Ordinary shall thereafter proceed in the petition as shall seem necessary and proper, provided that the petition and any answer, productions and proof need not be printed unless and until the Lord Ordinary shall otherwise order. And the Lords appoint this Act to be entered in the Books of Sederunt and to be printed and published in common form. J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D. Correspondence. To the Editor, "Scots Law Times" THE UNIVERSITY, SIR,-Your readers will be pleased to see by the letter from Professor Baty, appearing in the issue of 22nd ulto., that the "Scots Law Times" finds its way to Japan and is read by a Professor of English Law in the University of Tokio. The object of the lecture, from part of which Professor Baty dissents, was to draw attention to an incompleteness in our own system of criminal jurisprudence. The English Court of Appeal was dealt with only as illustrating the subject, and I was careful to point out that my sole qualification for doing so was derived mainly through the medium of the Reports of its decisions. Nevertheless I have no hesitation in making one or two observations in reply to what is stated by Dr Baty, who considers that my appreciation of the Court of Appeal is misplaced and suggests that the Court has been a failure and practically useless. For the views of an English lawyer exceptionally well qualified to judge, I would refer to an article by Mr Herman Cohen, K.C. in the "Quarterly Review" of October 1918. It is said in the letter referred to that the real function of the Court of Appeal has been to do the work of the old Court of Crown Cases Reserved. The Crown Cases Act of 1848 was limited to appeals on cases stated on a point of law, and only in the discretion of the judge. The Appeal Act of 1907 covers practically every ground-law, fact, evidence, ir regularity, miscarriage—upon which it is possible for a verdict or a sentence to be challenged. Dr Baty appears to assume that there are no more appeals now than under the old Act. The average yearly number of cases in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved for many years was about a dozen. I see from the "Judicial Statistics" that in 1906 the number of appeals under the Crown Cases Act was 10. Under the 1907 Act the yearly number of appeals runs from 100 to 200. In 1908 there were 4 cases under the Act of 1848, while in that year 108 appeals were heard under the new Act. How can the results of the Act be described as nil when in one year taken at random, out of 157 cases heard, 31 convictions were quashed and 47 sentences were reduced? The other specitic objection made by Professor Baty to my conclusion is that only one judgment is required to be pronounced as that of the Court, opinions not being given by judges forming a minority. This is, in any view, a small point to be described as "very injurious," but I may remark (1) if the appeal is on a question of law, separate opinions may by the statute be given, while in all other appeals there is surely much to be said for the provision of the Act, and (2) the Professor errs in thinking that the provision to which he objects applies to the judges of the House of Lords. In nearly all the appeals which have come before them opinions were delivered by each judge. JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES IN SCOTLAND. The following joint-stock companies have been registered in Scotland for week ending 28th January: 11583-The Hutton Estate Co. Ltd., 54 George Square, Glasgow (private company), to take over the estate of Hutton Castle and others in the county of Berwick. Capital£16,100 in £1 shares. 11584-The Blackburn Estate Co. Ltd., 54 George Square, Glasgow (private company), to take over the estate of Blackburn in the county of Berwick. Capital-£8100 in £1 shares. 11585-The Whiterig Estate Co. Ltd., 54 George Square, Glasgow (private company), to take over the estate of Whiterig and others in the county of Berwick. Capital£6100 in £1 shares. 11586-John W. Fullarton Ltd., 30 Avenue Street, business of ingot casters, and manufacturers and smelters of Bridgeton, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the lead, zinc, copper, tin, and other metals. Capital-£5000 in £10 shares. 11587-J. & A. Henderson Ltd., 8 Stirling Street, Airdrie (private company), to carry on the business of wholesale and retail fruit, vegetable merchants, seed merchants, and brokers, florists, nurserymen, fruit growers, farmers, etc. Capital-£25,000 in £1 shares. 11588-The South Alloa Shipbreaking Co. Ltd., 30 St the business carried on by the South Alloa Shipbreaking Co., Andrew Square, Edinburgh (private company), to take over Alloa. Capital-£20,000 in £1 shares. 11589-Agricultural Supplies Ltd., 16 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh (private company), to carry on business as dealers in and importers of manures, feeding stuffs, chemicals, fertilisers, etc. Capital-£2000 in £1 shares. 11590-Mineral Diggers Ltd., 19 Waterloo Street, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the business of stevedores, contractors, wharfingers, etc. Capital-£40,000 in £1 shares. 11591-J. P. Cochrane & Co. Ltd., Murano Works, Murano Place, Edinburgh (private company), to take over the business now carried on at Edinburgh under the style of J. P. Cochrane & Co., and to manufacture golf balls, golf clubs, motor and cycle tyres and tubes, etc. Capital-£55,000 in £1 shares. 11592 Forbest Ltd., 171 Brook Street, Broughty Ferry (private company), to carry on the business of photographers, etc. Capital-£3000 in £1 shares. 11593 Waistel, Cooper & Co. Ltd., 12 George Street, Ayr (private company), to carry on business as wholesale and retail newsagents, stationers, and booksellers, general merchants, etc., at above address, under the name of Waistel, Cooper & Co. Capital-£2400 in £1 shares. 11594-Refractory Products Ltd. (private company), to carry on the business of furnishers and suppliers of certain requirements in connection with the business of iron and steel founders, engineers, etc. Capital-£1200 in £1 shares. Subscribers-Mrs Scott, 44 Priory Road, Hampstead, London; Henry Meiklejohn, tea and wine specialist, 22 Jamaica Street, Glasgow; and James Findlay, writer, 41 West George Street, Glasgow. 11595-David Bell Ltd., 17 Coburg Street, Leith, Edinburgh (private company), to take over the business of wholesale seed merchant and seed grower now carried on by David Bell at Leith. Capital-£120,000 in £1 shares. 11596-W. C. Willis & Co. Ltd. (private company), to acquire the business of W. G. Willis & Co., 90 Mitchell Street, Glasgow, iron, steel, and metal merchants, and agents. Capital-£10,000 in £1 shares. 11597-The Scottish Electro-Plating Co. Ltd., 131 Houldsworth Street, Glasgow (private company), to carry on the business of electro-platers, bronzers, gilders, art and metal 11598-Albion Motor Car Co. (Australasia) Ltd., South business as merchants, engineers, electricians, makers and repairers of and dealers in and hirers of motor cars, etc. Capital-£10,000 in £1 shares. I remember hearing Lord Salvesen's impressive argu-finishers, etc. Capital-£6000 in £1 shares. ment for an enlarged right of criminal appeal in Scot-Street, Scotstoun, Glasgow (private company), to carry on land contained in an address delivered in 1905 to the Scots Law Society ("Juridical Review," Vol. XVII. p. 332). If the reform seems as far off as ever, we may congratulate ourselves that in this country the necessity for such a change cannot be fitly described as clamant. When our legislation ceases to be determined by the exigences of the hour some law officer of the Crown will, let us hope, be able to add the copestone to our otherwise admirable system of criminal procedure. -I am, your obedient servant, W. J. LEWIS. P.S.-The Professor has accorded me a title which I must disclaim, being only holder of the Lectureship in Evidence and Procedure. 11599-Grand Empire Theatres Ltd., 86 St Vincent Street, Glasgow (private company), to purchase the Grand Theatre, West Hartlepool; the Grand Theatre, Lancaster; the Theatre Royal, Whitehaven; and the New Empire Theatre, Whitehaven. Capital-£45,000 in £1 shares. EDITORIAL NOTE.-The Editor will be pleased to consider Articles on Legal Subjects and will welcome any suggestions from Subscribers which will serve to make the S.L. T. more useful to the Bar or Profession. |