INVITEE

SIN

TO

AT

can

Basin, their refusal of all " self-determination"
DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH
COURTS.

to that region, and their subjection of the

population to a despotic government by five Sheehan v. Dreamland, Margate Ltd. Commissioners for a period of fifteen years,

have produced a crop of juridical puzzles and REPARATION NEGLIGENCE

political troubles which will test the statesmanJURIES PERSON VISITING SIDE-SHOW

ship of Europe. The author of this little PLACE OF AMUSEMENT.—The defendants were volume has shewn with great clearness how proprietors of a place of amusement at Margate this illogical solution of the Saar problem known as Dreamland Park. The public were resulted from the compromise of conflicting invited by the defendants' advertisements to views at the Peace Conference, and how the frequent the park. The plaintiff on 13th troubles which have ensued followed naturally August 1921 visited the park and obtained from the complete ignoring of the wishes of from the defendants at the price of 6d. a ticket the people to be governed. Dr Bisschop's of admission to a side-show called the Luna treatment of the whole subject is temperate Ball. She averred that by the issue of this and impartial; and his work

be recomticket the defendants impliedly undertook to mended to all who wish to have an intelligent protect her from unusual danger. The Luna understanding of what promises to be a storm Ball was a deflated balloon, upon which the

centre of diplomacy for years to come. plaintiff was invited by the person in charge to sit with her feet facing towards the centre. The balloon was then inflated and the plaintiff raised 12 or 13 feet from the ground.

CURRENT LAW LITERATURE. Thereafter the balloon was rapidly deflated and inflated again until the plaintiff was

The Scots Digest of Cases Reported in the various thrown off. She averred that

no proper

Reporters, with Alphabetical Table of Statutes.

1914-1923. W. Green & Son Ltd. Price 308, means of breaking her fall were provided.

The English Reports Reprint. Vol. As a result of her fall she sustained a fracture

CLXVI. W. Green & Son Ltd.

Price 30s. of the vertebræ of the neck and other injuries. The case was tried before Avory J. and a

The Law Quarterly Review. Vol. XL. No. 157, special jury. The jury awarded the plaintiff

January 1924. Edited by A. E. Randall,

Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons Ltd. £1000 as damages, for which sum Avory J.

Price 6s. gave judgment. The defendants applied to the Court of Appeal for judgment or a new

Criminal Appeal Cases. Vol. XVII., pp. 181–202, and
Indexes.

Part IX. Edited by Herman Cohen trial. Held that the plaintiff was an invitee

of the Inner Temple. Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. and that as there was no evidence that the side

Price 12s. 6d. show in question was intrinsically dangerous A Practitioner's and Student's Digest of the Law nor any evidence of negligence on the part of

Relating to Bankruptcy and Deeds of Arrangethe defendants or any of their servants, the

ment. By Neville Hohson, Solicitor. Waterlow defendants were not liable. Cox v. Coulson

& Sons, ([1916] 2 K.B. 177) followed.-Court of Appeal The Principles and Practice of Fire Insurance in the (Bankes and Scrutton L.JJ. and Lush J.).—

United Kingdom. By Frank Godwin, of the 29th November 1923.

Phønix Assurance Co. Ltd. Sir Isaac Pilman.

Price 5s. The Law and Practice under the Companies Acts, LAW LIBRARY.

containing the Statutes and the Rules, Orders,

and Forms to Regulate Proceedings. By the BOOK NOTICES.

Rt. Hon. Lord Wrenbury, P.C., M.A. Tenth

Edition by W. Gordon Brown, B.A., LL.B., and The Saar Controversy. By W. R. Bisschop, R. J. T. Gibson, M.A., LL.M., Barristers-at-Law. LL.D. Grotius Society Publications, No.

Stevens de Sons Ltd..

Price 50s, net. 2. 1924. London: Sweet & Maxwell A Supplement to Davey's Law of Rating, Practice, Ltd. Price 7s. 6d.

Procedure, and Statutes (bringing the work down

to January 1924). By Herbert Davey, BarristerThe Grotius Society, which has done so much at-Law. Stevens & Sons Ltd. Price 7s. 6d, net. to promote the intelligent study and practical The Grotius Society Publications, No. 2. The Saar application of international law, has increased

Controversy. By W. R. Bisschop, LL.D., our obligation to it by publishing in a con- Barrister-at-Law. Sweet & Maxwell Lid. venient form Dr Bisschop's informative paper

Price 7s, 6d. on “The Saar Controversy. The departure of The Incorporated Accountants' Year Book. 1924. the peace-makers" of Versailles from their The Society of Incorporated Accountants and avowed principles in the case of the Saar Auditors.

Price 3s,

a

66

'bade spare

'SIR WALTER SCOTT'S INCOME TAX. 1st, It is a patent right, expected to

produce an annual, or at least an Politeness requires the assumption that the incidental, profit during the currency great majority of our readers are familiar with Lockhart's“ Life of Scott," but even they

of many years; and surely it was never

contended that if a man sold a theatrical may not object to be reminded of what is there disclosed regarding an attempt to exact income

patent, or a patent for machinery, tax from the author of Waverley." But,

property-tax should be levied, in the indeed, the incident occurred in 1813 before

first place, on the full price as paid to the first of the novels had appeared, and what

the seller, and then on the profits as the taxing authorities had in view were the purchased by the buyer. I am not very poems and the author's miscellaneous and expert at figures, but I think it clear very numerous and lucrative prose works. that a double taxation takes place. The matter is first mentioned in a letter dated

2d, It should be considered that a 10th December 1813 to his friend Miss Joanna

book may be the work, not of one year, Baillie, then in London:

but of a man's whole life ; and as it As to the taxing men I must battle has been found, in a late case of the them as I can ; they are worse than the

Duke of Gordon, that a fall of timber great Emathian conqueror who

was not subject to property-tax because

it comprehended the produce of thirty The house of Pindarus, when temple and tower

years, it seems at least equally fair that Went to the ground.

mental exertions should not be subjected

to a harder principle of measurement. Scott had other troubles at the time, and to add to these in the autumn of 1813 a demand

3d, The demand is, so far as I can was made upon him by the Commissioners of

learn, totally new and unheard of. Income Tax to render a Return of the 4th, Supposing that I died and left profits of his literary labours during the three my manuscripts to be sold publicly preceding years. The language has still a along with the rest of my library, is familiar ring. Scott demurred. He consulted there any ground for taxing what might high Scottish authorities, by which we take be received for the written book, any it we are to understand some of his senior

more than any rare printed book which Parliament House friends in the actual practice

a speculative bookseller might purchase of their profession, who had special experience

with a view to re-publication ? of revenue cases. David Hume and every lawyer here Samuel Romilly and Mr Alexander, afterwards

The English counsel consulted were Sir whom I have spoken to consider the Sir William Alexander, and Chief Baron of the demand as illegal.

Exchequer. They advised in favour of nonFrom this we may safely infer that the liability. The usual tedious correspondence consultations were on a friendly and not a with the Department followed, but the authoriprofessional basis, and that the opinions were Lockhart says that they abandoned “their

ties at last decided to abandon the claim. verbal. Evidently it was felt that Scottish opinion must in such a case be buttressed by claim upon the produce of literary labour.” that of English lawyers, and so Scott wrote to

to his friend in London, Mr John Richardson, way, or he may have been misled into doing of Fludyer Street, Westminster, to prepare a

so by thinking exclusively of the numerous Case

for English counsel. The letter to cases in which Scott sold the publication rights Richardson contains the following:

for a lump sum.

Even as to that, however,

Sir Walter was usually careful about what he I wish you to lay before either the was doing. Thus when in 1816 he was negotiKing's Counsel or Sir Samuel Romilly ating, through James Ballantyne, with Murray and any other you may approve the of London and Blackwood of Edinburgh for point whether, à copyright being sold the production of " Tales of my Landlord," point whether, a copyright being sold he wrote to John Ballantyne regarding the for the term during which Queen Anne's

envoy's “ conversations Act warranted the property to the be called :

as they would now author, the price is liable in payment of the property-tax. I contend it is James has made one or two important not so liable, for the following reasons- mistakes in [the pouparlers for] the

bargain with Murray and Blackwood. it was based upon the advice of Crown Counsel. Briefly as follows

Irideed, it is difficult to understand a suggestion 1stly, Having only authority from made by Scott in his letter to Richardson me to promise 6000 copies, he proposes

that his case might be placed before "the they shall have the copyright for ever. King's Counsel ” to advise him. I will see their noses cheese first.

Whatever was the extent of the victory won

by Scott for himself and for his brethren of Whether the Scottish and English opinions letters, let us congratulate him upon it. But obtained by the bard were wide enough to it has long since ceased to hold. We are not cover a case like that, we are not told. Turning aware that this severer régime turns on any back to the instructions to Richardson, we see change in the taxing words of the successive how careful the writer was to make it clear Acts. But for a long time back all profits that he was dealing only with out-and-out of literature, in the widest application of that sales of the property in the copyright “for abused term, have been taxable, even including ever." He says that he is to be advised on the lump prices for the complete sale of the copyassumption of the “copyright being sold for right * for ever.” As regards those sales we the term during which the Act warranted the are merely stating what is, without expressing property to the owner,” and the main reasons any opinion on what ought to be. As to that he gives are applicable only to a deal of that we think Royal Commissions, whether aware nature, and not to a licence for a limited or not of Sir Walter's first argument in his period or for one edition. We can scarcely letter to Richardson, have conceded that it believe that the Department intimated, or admits of no logical answer. But the fact is ever acted on, a decision to treat authorship that, while royalties from both patents and as being different in kind, from the taxation copyrights are assessed to income tax, lump standpoint, from every other profession and prices for sales of patents are treated as capital, occupation. If no sale at all, then Scott's while lump prices for sales of copyright are query had no place. If a letting or licence for treated as assessable income. The present an annual fee or for a lump sum, again his writer once tried to explain this apparent query does not hold. In these cases we do not anomaly to an enquirer on the view of the doubt that, back to 1813, income tax, when in official doctrine that literature is or may be force, has been exacted, but it would have made a steady occupation, the author turning been interesting if Lockhart had been in out so much bulk per day after the manner of possession of, and had stated, more particulars. Goldsmith, and indeed, of Sir Walter himself, What he does say is not satisfactory. His while invention comes by inspiration, to which statement of the official abandonment, as we the reception recorded was—Nonsense! If have said, is far wider than was required to there is a better explanation we concur with meet the one case put by Scott, and that Royal Commissions in saying that we do not statement is made by Lockhart without any know it. So, argumentatively, Sir Walter is sign that he perceives that he is going far unanswered and apparently unanswerable. beyond his book. He then adds: “I have Logic counts for little in this country, and it is thought it worth while to preserve some record significant that even the latest Royal Comof this decision, and of the authorities on which mission—that which reported in 1920-abit rested, in case such a demand should ever stained from recommending that the law-or it be renewed hereafter.” This is again rather may be only the practice-should be changed. loose and unsatisfactory.

It would seem,

It may be added that copyright royalties however, to tell us that Scott never paid any score over patent royalties in respect that the income tax on the profits of any of his literary former are treated as earned income when labours. But as to that it is to be remembered payable to the author, while the latter, even that the tax, which originated in 1803, was when payable to the inventor, are taken as dropped after Waterloo, and was not revived investment income. till 1842. Further, Lockhart seems to say that the opinions of Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr Alexander had been produced to the Income Tax Department, and that it had been those As we go to press we note that the King has opinions which had moved the officials. If so, been pleased, on the recommendation of the that could only be on the effect of complete Secretary for Scotland, to whom the name was sales, for those opinions must have been submitted by the Lord Justice-General, to limited to that, unless the London Case approve of the rank and dignity of King's went far beyond Scott's instructions for its Counsel to His Majesty in Scotland being preparation. It may safely be assumed that, conferred on Mr Robert Macgregor Mitchell, whatever was the decision of the Department, advocate.

NOTICE,

and was for some time in Largs, where he held

several public appointments, including that of. The sittings of the First Division of the Court Procurator-Fiscal. He returned to Aberdeen for the trial of causes by jury in the ensuing about twelve years ago, and for a few years vacation will begin on Friday, 21st March was in partnership with Mr John Middleton next.

J. P.. under the firm name of Stuart M‘Kay & EDINBURGH, 27th February 1924.

Middleton.
The sittings of the Second Division of the
Court for the trial of causes by jury in the

MR A. B. NICOLSON, W.S., a partner of ensuing vacation will begin on Friday, 21st the firm of Davidson & Garden, advocates, March next.

J. A. Aberdeen, and the proprietor of Glenbervie, EDINBURGH, 27th February 1924.

Kincardineshire, died at Glenbervie, on 25th

February, aged fifty-eight years. Mr Nicolson Note.-With regard to the transmission of causes for trial at these sittings, agents are referred to the Codify: succeeded to the estate in 1899 on the death of ing Act of Sederunt, Book F, chapter i., section 5. A his father. He took a prominent part in the copy of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor allowing the public work of Kincardineshire, was Deputy trial to proceed at the sittings, along with a print of the Lieutenant, member of the County Council, closed record and of the adjusted issue or issues, niust be handed to the Keeper of the Rolls of the Division

in chairman of the Glenbervie Parish Council, which the cause is to be tried, and that not later than and represented Kincardineshire on the Board twelve o'clook noon on Wednesday, 5th March, other of Governors of the North of Scotland College wise the cause will not be taken at the sittings.

of Agriculture. Mr Nicolson was a B.A. of Box-Days-SPRING VACATION, 1924.-Edin University College, Oxford, and qualified as a burgb, 27th February 1924.-The Lords of Writer to the Signet in 1891. He is survived

— Council and Session appoint Thursday, 10th by his widow, a daughter of the late Mr A. J. April

, and Thursday, 1st May, to be the Box- Napier, W.S., Heriot Row, Edinburgh, and by days in the ensuing vacation,

a son and two daughters. J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D. THE Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills

DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH will sit in Court on Wednesday, 16th April, and

COURTS. Wednesday, 7th May, each day at eleven o'clock forenoon, for the disposal of motions and other Sutton v. New Tabernacle (Old Street business falling under the 93rd section of the Congregational) Approved Society. Court of Session Act, 1868, and the 3rd section of chapter i., Book A, Codifying Act of Sederunt;

HEALTH_APPROVED and Rolls will be taken up on Monday, 14th SOCIETY—RIGHT EXPEL-PREGNANCY April, and Monday, 5th May, between the hours UNMARRIED WOMAN-NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, of eleven and twelve o'clock.

1911 (1 & 2 GEO. V. CAP. 55), SECTION 30 EDINBURGH, 27th February 1924.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT, 1918 (7 & 8 GEO. V. CAP. 62), SECTION 12 (3).—Edith

Sutton was a member of a society approved A SPECIAL meeting of the Faculty of Pro- under the National Insurance Act, 1911. She curators in Glasgow was held last week in the had duly paid her subscriptions thereto. She Faculty Hall, St George's Place, for the pur

was an unmarried woman. A visitor of the pose of appointing an auditor of accounts in society, hearing that she was ill, visited her succession to the late Mr John Fraser Orr. On

and found that she a ballot, Mr William Stirling, writer, 184 West visitor reported this fact to the society, which

was pregnant. The Regent Street, Glasgow, was elected auditor. after consideration of the case exercised its The following law agents were admitted mem- rights under its 18th Rule, and expelled bers of Faculty : John Rankin, B.L., 138 West Edith Sutton on the ground of immoral conRegent Street, Glasgow; Alexander Moncrieff duct. It was contended that Rule 18 was. Mitchell, jun., LL.B., 160 West George Street, ultra vires in view of the provisions of the Glasgow ; Charles Batchelor, 50 West Regent National Health Insurance Act, 1918, section Street, Glasgow; and John Drummond

12 (3). Held that the society was entitled to Strathern, Procurator-Fiscal, County Buildings, act as it had done, seeing that the person Glasgow.

expelled was not deprived of any benefits

within the meaning of the National Health MR R. STUART M'KAY, solicitor, has died Insurance Act, 1918, section 12 (3), inassuddenly at his residence, 21 Orchard Place, much as she got the full transfer value of her Aberdeen. He had not been in good health rights handed over either to another society

He was fifty-one years of age, or to the Post Office, although she ceased to

INSURANCE-NATIONAL

TO

OF

have the right to remain a member of the and against the owners of the lorry. The society or to get future contingent benefits.- defendant Patrick pleaded that Essex was not K.B. Div. (Lord Hewart C.J., Sankey and his servant or agent, and the owners of the Swift JJ.).—20th December 1923.

motor lorry pleaded, inter alia, that the accident

was due to the negligence of the defendant Rex v. Devon Justices.

Patrick's servant or agent. Held (1) on the

evidence Essex, and not the driver of the motor CRIMINAL LAW---QUARTER SESSIONS-JURIS

lorry, was in fault; (2) that Patrick was bound DICTION-LARCENY COMMITTED ON ONE OF THE KING'S SHIPS LYING ABOVE THE FORTH BRIDGE

to exercise due and reasonable care towards his ENGLAND-LARCENY ACT, 1861 -ARREST IN

passenger, Pratt; (3) that if the defendant (24 & 25

Patrick had been driving and had driven as VICT. CAP. 96), SECTION 115

Essex drove he would have been liable in LARCENY ACT, 1916 (6 & 7 GEO. V. CAP. 50), SECTION 17 (1) (A).—This was a rule nisi

damages ; (4) that as the defendant Patrick calling upon the Justices of the County of was in the car 'and in control of it, he was no Devon to shew cause why they should not entrusted the actual physical management of

less liable by reason of the fact that he had proceed with an indictment against Roderick William Castle whereby he was charged with the car and its mechanical control to Essex, larceny contrary to section 17 (1) (a) of the whose negligence caused the collision; and

5 Larceny Act, 1916, upon the ground that (5) that the defendant Patrick was liable for there was jurisdiction to try the said Roderick the costs of the successful defendants, the William Castle by virtue of section 115 of the

owners of the motor lorry. Wheatley v. Patrick Larceny Act, 1861. On 3rd October 1923, at the (6 L.J., N.S., Ex. 193) and Samson v. Aitchison Devon Quarter Sessions, a true bill was found by ([1912) A.C. 844) followed.—K.B. Div. (Acton

]

J.).-21st December 1923. the Grand Jury, charging Roderick William Castle with larceny on the high seas.” The offence was alleged to have taken place on 10th July 1923 on board H.M.S.

“Princess

LAW LIBRARY.
Margaret," then stationed in the Firth of
Forth at a point opposite Rosyth, above the

BOOK NOTICES. Forth Bridge, but at a place to which the largest ships in the Navy could go. The The Law and Practice under the Companies Acts. justices declined to proceed with the indictment By the Right Hon. Lord. Wrenbury, P.C. on the ground that section 115 of the Larceny Tenth Edition by W. Gordon Brown and Act, 1861, did not extend to offences committed R. J. T. Gibson, Barristers-at-Law. 1924. in estuaries in Scotland, and that the accused

London : Stevens & Sons Ltd. Price ought to be tried in the Scottish Courts. Held £2, 10s. that the offence being committed in one of His Majesty's ships 'was committed within the

It will be a matter of regret to the many jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and users of “Buckley's Company Law” that this the Quarter Sessions for the County of Devon new edition lacks, for the first time, the author's had jurisdiction to try the indictment.-K.B. own editorship. It is, as Lord Wrenbury inDiv. (Lord Hewart C.J., Sankey and Swift JJ.). forms us in his preface, more than fifty years 21st December 1923.

since he published the first edition, and all subsequent issues until this one have been the work

of his own hand. Pratt v. Patrick and Others.

The author has, however,

been fortunate in the hands to which he has AGENT—NEGLIGENCE-LIA- entrusted the work; and readers may rely on BILITY OF OWNER OF MOTOR FOR NEGLIGENCE the care and diligence with which the later OF FRIEND WHO IS DRIVING HIM.—On 17th May modifications of the law and practice of com1923 the defendant James Patrick, the owner panies have been incorporated. The method of a motor car, was being driven therein by one of treatment of a branch of law in the form of a Essex, a friend of his. Arthur James Pratt, a commentary of one or more statutes is one bookmaker, who was a gratuitous passenger in which is open to many objections. It tends to the car, was seated in the back seat, while be unscientific and illogical in arrangement. Patrick was in front beside Essex. Near But if ever the method is excusable, it is in Tewkesbury the car came into collision with dealing with a department of law which is a motor lorry, and Pratt was so seriously entirely the creation of statute. This was the injured that he died on 18th May 1923. reason given by the author of this work in Pratt's widow brought an action against the preface to his first edition, and the remarkPatrick under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, able success which the book has achieved may on behalf of herself and her four infant children, I offer further justification.

PRINCIPAL

AND

a