tion of the war, and for a period not exceeding three years, that the Court might consider necessary or expedient in the national interest. This power was subject to the Ministry not having agreed otherwise with the owner. The respondent owner here was not willing to part with the property. The Ministry asked for consent to the compulsory purchase, as they had entered into a contract with a distillery company to sell the land and the buildings at a price represented substantially by the cost to the Ministry of obtaining it. The Ministry did not themselves require the land at all; they only wanted to take it from the owner to sell it, so that they might recoup the Department for the outlay in erecting the buildings, and so avoid the loss to the State that would be incurred in the removal of the buildings. The facts shewed that the value of the materials, if the buildings were now removed, would not equal the cost of the removal. The Court had to consider, therefore, whether it was of national importance that the Ministry should acquire the land so that they might sell it. The Court was entitled to protect the subject against the undue exercise of the force of the Crown to deprive a man permanently of his property, and if they thought that the circumstances were such that the power ought not to be exercised there was no doubt that it was the duty of the Court to prevent its being exercised. It was argued that it was in the national interest that the loss to the State should be avoided. He thought that they must pay regard to the fact of whether the Government Department required the land for national purposes, or could make an advantageous use of it. He did not think that the Act contemplated that these powers of compulsory acquisition should be exercised where the Crown did not themselves want the land, but only intended to sell it. It could not be said that the Crown required this land in any real sense. The Court must consider each case on its merits, and if the view advanced for the ministry were accepted it seemed to him that it might enable a Government Department to deprive an owner of his land and effect a profit at the owner's expense. This was a case where the Court must withhold its consent. They had to consider whether the granting of the application had brought hardship and injustice on the owner in compelling him to part with his land. It was not enough merely to say that the owner would be compensated. Here the owner would be handicapped in his business if he were deprived of his land. It was the only place he could get, and it was convenient for him. There was no cause shewn for granting the Ministry's application, and the consent would accordingly be withheld. Mr Macnamara agreed, and the Ministry's application was refused, with costs to the respondent. INTOXICATION IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. J. ROBERTON CHRISTIE, K.C. (Continued from p. 88.) Thus in Aitken (1902, 4 Adam 89) Lord Stormonth Darling directed the jury that "In a sane man neither jealousy nor drink nor both combined are sufficient to make such a crime" (homicide with a razor) "less than murder. The principle that there may be a degree of insanity not sufficient to destroy criminal responsibility and yet sufficient to modify the nature of the crime is one recognised and acted upon in recent times, but must be applied with care, and it should only be applied if the jury is satisfied that there is something amounting to brain disease." And in Herbert (1913, 7 Adam 233) Lord Johnston questioned the soundness of the law formulated by Lord Deas in Dingwall, and protested "against the doctrine being received as part of the criminal law and practice of Scotland" until approved of by a fuller Bench. This is somewhat unsettling. And on the other hand, in England in the case of Meade, ([1909] 1 K.B. 895), the Court of Criminal Appeal, through Darling J., gave a judgment so expressed as to lend itself to relaxation greater than that sanctioned by the decisions reviewed. The crime there charged was murder by violence, including a brutal blow with the fist which caused rupture and death. The complaint against the charge of the trial judge was that it was in terms which might lead the jury to conclude that they could not bring in a verdict of mere manslaughter unless satisfied of actual insanity. The view of the Appeal Court was consistent with the authorities, viz. that where intent is of the essence of the crime charged the intent may be disproved by shewing that the accused was in a condition of drunkenness which rendered him incapable of forming the intent. But the actual language of the judgment contained a proposition of law "which, regarded as a rule of general application, would mean that a person charged with a crime of violence might rebut the presumption that he intended the natural consequences of his acts by shewing that he was so drunk as to be incapable of knowing that what he did was dangerous, i.e. likely to cause serious injury" (per Birkenhead L.C. in Beard's case). Within limits, i.e. where the weapon used is such as is not prima facie dangerous in this sense, this direction might be unobjectionable. But on reviewing it in Beard's case the House of Lords affirmed that in its wider interpretation as a rule of general application it could not be supported on the authorities, but was erroneous in substituting for the test of whether the accused was incapable of forming the intent that of whether he was incapable of foreseeing or measuring the consequences of his act. In Beard's case the accused, while engaged in an act of rape on a young girl, had placed his hand over her mouth, with the result that she was suffocated and died. The trial judge directed the jury that this amounted to murder unless they were satisfied that the accused either (a) did not know what he was doing, or (b) did not know that it was wrong. The jury convicted of murder. The Court of Criminal Appeal, taking the view that Meade had established a rule of general application, held that the jury should have been directed accordingly, and it reduced the conviction to one for manslaughter. The case was appealed to the House of Lords for a decision on the general question of the appropriate direction in such cases. The House had no difficulty in holding that the accused was not so drunk as to be incapable of forming the intention of committing the felony of rape, that as incidental to this he had committed a violent act from which death ensued, and that this was murder. On the more general question, the judgment of the House, delivered by the Lord Chancellor, was to the effect that the direction of the trial judge was erroneous in respect that it was in terms only appropriate to a plea of actual insanity which was not taken. That appropriate to the actual plea of drunkenness in palliation of the more serious charge should have been in the terms indicated in heads (2) and (3) of the Lord Chancellor's summary of the results of the earlier authorities already cited (supra, p. 84); and in particular it should have been put to the jury whether the whole facts proved (including the evidence of drunkenness) satisfied them that the accused was or was not incapable of forming the guilty intent charged, i.e. in the particular case, the felony of rape. judgment is a contribution to our law as well as to that of England, inasmuch as it affords a standard for judging on a question on which there is no distinction in principle between the two systems of jurisprudence. The history of the case is a weighty argument in evidence of the usefulness of a well regulated system of criminal appeal. ACCOUNTANTS' FEES.-The Councils of the Society of Accountants in Edinburgh, the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow, and the Society of Accountants in Aberdeen have issued a joint memorandum to the members of their societies recommending that, in view of the great increase which has taken place in salaries and other office expenses, fees be increased by 50 per cent. over the standard commonly adopted before the war. SIR JOSEPH DOBBIE, S.S.C., HONOURED.Last week Sir Joseph Dobbie, S.S.C., J.P., who was among the recipients of His Majesty the King's birthday honours, was entertained to a complimentary dinner in the Caledonian Station Hotel, Edinburgh. The Hon. Lord St Vigeans presided over a company numbering about fifty. Lord Rosebery, in a letter to the hon. secretary, Mr H. G. Allan, expressing his regret at being unable to attend, referred to the knighthood conferred on Sir Joseph Dobbie, who, he stated, well deserved the honour. The Secretary for Scotland, Mr Robert Munro, K.C., M.P., and the Lord Advocate, Mr T. B. Morison, also sent apologies for absence. The Chairman, in submitting the toast of "Our Guest," referred to the public services of Sir Joseph Dobbie, particularly in regard to recruiting, and his legal duties as adviser to the Edinburgh Military The language of the judgment is to some Tribunal. Councillor W. L. Sleigh, president of extent affected by the technical form of the the Rosebery Royal Scots Recruiting Committee, charge in English parlance, viz. "wounding with presented Sir Joseph with his portrait in oils by intent to kill, etc." But, as the Lord Chancellor Mr Cowan Dobson, A.R.S.A. The portrait, was careful to point out, its scope is not limited which is an excellent likeness, was subscribed to by this technicality. For, broadly speaking, by the members of the Recruiting Committee intent is of the essence of any criminal charge-and the officers of the 17th (Bantam) Battalion a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless the mens is rea." So regarded, the judgment is in principle as valuable as a guide in Scotland as in England, and is as applicable to a charge of any crime (at least at common law) as it is to one of murder. It is true that it has been in cases of murder that the question has generally arisen sharply; but this is not because of any difference in principle, but because upon other charges effect can more readily be given to the ameliorative circumstance in the sentence; whereas on a charge of murder this can only be done by reduction of the crime charged to one of a less heinous category. It is in no way inconsistent with the most zealous insistence on the complete supremacy of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland to affirm that this carefully reasoned of the Royal Scots. Sir Joseph Dobbie, in accepting, made suitable acknowledgment. Other toasts followed. PRESENTATION ΤΟ LOTHIANS POOR LAW OFFICIAL.-An interesting presentation__took place in the offices of the Edinburgh Parish Council, Castle Terrace, last week, in honour of the appointment of Mr W. Mowatt, who has for twenty years been secretary to the Lothians Poor Law Association, to the presidency of the Association. The presentation, which consisted of a silver teapot and a silver salver, was made on behalf of the Association by Mr Duncan, Liberton, vice-president. In the absence of his wife, Mr Mowatt also accepted on her behalf the presentation of a gold wristlet watch, which was made by Mr Johnston, Borthwick. MR THOMAS GILLESPIE, W.S., having returned to Canada, has joined Mr Lafferty in partnership, under the firm name of Lafferty & Gillespie, solicitors and notaries, 3 Alberta Block, Calgary, Alberta. Mr Gillespie came home on the outbreak of war to join up, and served in the East. On being demobilised he spent a long holiday in St Andrews, where, as a member of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club, he gained considerable distinction as a scratch player. DEATH OF LANARKSHIRE SHERIFF-CLERK. DEATH OF MR R. M'GEORGE, LANGHOLM. The death took place on Monday last of Mr Robert M'George, of Messrs Dobie & M'George, solicitors, Langholm. He held several of the principal public appointments. Prior to Langholm becoming a police burgh, he was for many years the head of the municipality. He afterwards became procurator-fiscal, clerk to several Education Authorities and Langholm District Committee. DEATH OF WELL-KNOWN DINGWALL NATIVE. The death has occurred at Kilmacolm, of Mr-Mr Alexander Munro, retired Parish Clerk Robert Guy, Sheriff-Clerk of Lanarkshire, and Burgh Chamberlain of Dingwall, has died brother of Sheriff-Substitute Guy, of Edinburgh. in his 88th year. A native of Dingwall, he was Before his appointment as clerk to the Sheriff thirty-three years in the Post Office service of dom of Lanarkshire in 1916, he filled the posts the gasworks, subsequently being appointed the town, when he became manager in 1862 of of Town-Clerk of Pollokshaws and secretary and He retired from Poor Inspector. all his treasurer to Eastwood School Board, serving in the latter capacity for over thirty years. Mr appointments ten years ago. Guy acted as honorary secretary and treasurer of the Glasgow Unionist Association for almost twenty years. He held several other posts in political organisations, and his services were also in demand as an election agent several times by Sir John Stirling Maxwell and Mr Scott Dickson (now Lord Scott Dickson). In the Appeal Court at the County Buildings, Glasgow, on Monday last, Sheriff-Principal MacKenzie made reference to the death of Mr Guy. Mr Archibald Hamilton, on behalf of the Bar, associated himself with the Sheriff's remarks. KIRKCALDY SOLICITOR'S DEATH.-Mr Thomas Johnston, head of the firm of T. & T. Johnston, solicitors, Kirkcaldy, has died at his residence, ACT OF SEDERUNT EXTENDING CERTAIN TEMPORARY ACTS OF SEDERUNT INCREASING FEES. EDINBURGH, 9th July 1920. The Lords of Council and Session, considering that the causes which called for the increases of fees granted temporarily in the Acts of Sederunt set forth in the schedule hereto annexed still hold good, and it is therefore expedient that the increased fees therein allowed be still continued, therefore enact and declare that the said Acts of Sederunt shall be extended, and have full force and effect down to and including 31st October 1921. 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, 1.P.D. SCHEDULE REFERRED TO. 6 East Fergus Place, Kirkcaldy, in his 82nd 1. Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S., Book M, year. A native of Kelso, he served his apprenticeship with the late Mr James StormonthDarling, W.S., father of Lord Stormonth Chapter i., Table of Fees, Part C, section 1, anent Remuneration of Bar Officers in Sheriff Courts, dated 16th July 1919. Darling. He came to Kirkcaldy fifty-five years 2. Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S., Book M, ago, and acted as auditor to Kirkcaldy Corporation for over thirty years. Mr Johnston was an Hon. Sheriff-Substitute of Fifeshire. 3. DEATH OF A HAMILTON SOLICITOR.-The death occurred on Tuesday last at his residence, Auchingramont, Hamilton, of Mr Patrick Keith, solicitor. He was a native of Hamilton, being a son of the Rev. Dr Keith, a former minister of 4. the Old Parish Church. Mr Keith was clerk to the old School Board of Hamilton. Chapter iii., anent Fees in Civil Business for Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S., Book M, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1903, or otherwise, dated 25th February 1920. 5. Act of Sederunt amending C.A.S., Book A, Chapter ix., section 4, anent Fees Payable to Messengers-at-Arms, dated 1st June 1920. DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH Geddling v. Marsh CONTRACT— SALE OF GOODS-GOODS SUPPLIED UNDER CONTRACT OF SALE-IMPLIED WARRANTY -MINERAL WATER IN BOTTLES-PROPERTY IN BOTTLES NOT PASSING TO PURCHASER-IMPLIED WARRANTY AS TO FITNESS OF BOTTLES-SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893 (56 & 57 VICT. CAP. 71), SECTION 14 (1).—The plaintiff, who kept a shop for the sale of mineral waters, was injured, without negligence on her part, through the bursting of a bottle. The mineral waters required by the plaintiff were supplied to her by the defendant, the manufacturer, in bottles at the price of 3d. for the contents of each bottle, but the property in the bottles did not pass to her. Held in an action by the plaintiff for damages that the bottles were supplied under a contract of sale and that there was therefore an implied warranty under section 14 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 that they should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required; that the bottle was not reasonably fit for such purpose; and that the defendant was liable in damages.-K.B. Div. (Bray and Bailhache JJ.).—15th January 1920. In re The Express Engineering Works Ltd. gone into liquidation, the liquidator sought to Newcastle Breweries Ltd. v. The King. WAR-DEFENCE OF THE REALM-REQUISITION OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION REGULATIONS, REGULATION 2B.-Held that Regulation 2B of Goldsmith v. Orr. WAR-EMERGENCY LEGISLATION-LANDLORD AND TENANT-INCREASE OF RENT-DATE-PROGRESSIVE RENT-INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) ACT 1919, SECTIONS 4 (1) AND 7.-An agreement was made between the tenant of a house and the proprietor in October 1918 providing that the tenant should continue his tenancy at the existing rate of £50 per annum until 25th March 1918 and thereafter for one year at the rate of £65 per annum. The landlord having claimed rent at the rate of £65 per annum from 25th March 1919, the tenant declined to pay a higher rate than £55, WHOLE i.e. the standard rent plus 10 per cent., and CON- contended that as the increase had been made since 25th December 1918, the excess over 10 per cent. on the standard rent was irrecoverable under section 4 (i) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1919. Held that the date of the increase was the date when it came into effect, not the date of the agreement, and that section 4 (i) therefore applied, and that the agreement did not create a "progressive" rent in the sense of section 7, but merely provided for a definite increase for a particular period of twelve months.-K.B. Div. (Bailhache and Sankey JJ.).-12th February 1920. TRACT-CONTRACT AGREED TO AT BOARD MEET ING CONTRACT ULTRA VIRES OF DIRECTORS VALIDITY.—The articles of a company provided that a director might contract with or be interested in any contract with the company, but that no director should, as a director, vote in respect of any contract in which he might be interested. The company consisted of five members who were all appointed directors. At a board meeting, at which all the directors were present, it was resolved to purchase the assets of a company, which had been acquired by the five shareholders for the sum of £7000, at the price of £15,000, to be satisfied by the issue of debentures for that amount bearing interest at 12 per cent. The debentures were duly issued and were subsequently transferred to a syndicate consisting of four members who were all members of the company. The company having Commissioners of Taxation v. English, Scottish, BILL OF EXCHANGE-CROSSED CHEQUE-BANK 1 TOMER-NEGLIGENCE-BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1909 (AUSTRALIAN STATUTE), SECTION 88 (1).Held (1) that a person whose money has been accepted by a bank on the footing that the bank undertakes to honour cheques up to the amount standing to his credit is a customer of the bank within the meaning of section 88 (1) of the Australian Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (which is in the same terms as section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882), irrespective of whether his connection with the bank is of short or long standing, and (2) that the test of negligence within the meaning of the section is whether the transaction of paying in any given cheque, coupled with the circumstances antecedent and present, was so out of the ordinary course that it ought to have aroused doubts in the bankers' minds and caused them to make enquiry.Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Viscount Haldane, Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Buckmaster).-17th February 1920. Farr v. Motor Trades Mutual Insurance Society. dismissed by his employers. At the time there was a dispute between the employers and the defendant's union on the subject of employment of members of the plaintiff's union with members of the defendant's union. Held, in an action for an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's employment, that the defendant had not used any threat or coerced the employers into discharging the plaintiff and that he was protected by section 3 of the Trades Dispute Act 1906.-Chan. Div. (Peterson J.).— 20th February 1920. INSURANCE—ACCIDENT INSURANCE-POLICY| In re Wakley-Wakley v. Vachell. COMPANY DEND - DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE DIVIPERIOD DURING WHICH NO DIVIDEND FULL CUMULATIVE DIVIDEND PAID SHAREHOLDER DYING APPORTION IN ONE SHIFT DURING TWENTY-FOUR HOURSBREACH OF CONDITION-SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHILE CAB BEING DRIVEN IN ONE SHIFT.-The owner of a taxi-cab insured against damage to the cab and accidental injuries caused to third parties under a policy which contained the condition that the cab should be driven in one shift in each twenty-four hours. For some time IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR thereafter the cab was driven in two shifts, but BEFORE DIVIDEND DECLARED in November 1918, when a collision with another ABILITY OF DIVIDEND APPORTIONMENT ACT vehicle occurred, it was being run in only one 1870 (33 & 34 VICT. CAP. 35), SECTIONS 2 AND 5. shift. Held that the policy was not rendered-The profits of a company were applicable in void by the earlier breach of the condition and that the insured was entitled to recover in respect of the damage.-K.B. Div. (Rowlatt J.). -18th February 1920. MEN Hodges v. Webb. WORKMAN TRADE UNION-TRADES DISPUTE MEMBER OF ONE UNION REFUSING TO JOIN ANOTHER-SECRETARY OF UNION CALLING OUT THREAT TRADES DISPUTE ACT 1906 (6 EDW. VII. CAP. 47), SECTION 3. The plaintiff was a member of the National Association of Supervising Engineers and was asked by the defendant, the secretary of the Electrical Trade Union, to join the latter, which he declined to do, whereupon the defendant called out the other men working on the job, most of whom were members of the Electrical Trade Union. The defendant further told the plaintiff that if he did not join his union there would be similar trouble on any other job on which he was engaged. In consequence of the strike the plaintiff was the first place to payment of a fixed cumulative dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the preferred ordinary shares. The articles provided that no dividend should be payable except out of profits. For the half-year ending 31st December 1904 and the year ending 31st December 1905 the company did not make sufficient profits to enable a dividend to be declared. For the years ending 31st December 1906 and 31st December 1907 large profits were made, and in December 1907 a dividend was declared on the preferred shares which was to cover the cumulative dividend on these shares for the three years ending 30th June 1907. A shareholder had died in 1905 and a question arose as to whether the dividend on his holding fell to be apportioned, under the Apportionment Act 1870, between his residuary estate and the persons entitled to the shares under his will. Held that as no right to any dividend accrued until profits had been made and a dividend declared, and the dividend declared in 1907 was a dividend in respect of the year ending 30th June 1907, the dividend was not appor |