IN LIGHTER VEIN.

A jury in the Paris Assizes rendered a Gilbertian verdict recently.

James Parker, 25 years old, born in Paris of English parents, disappeared from the Paris offices of the American Express Company last February. It was found he had stolen 475,000 francs (about $30,000). He was arrested several months later. and put on trial. He said frankly he had taken the money from time to time to the total charged, which he had spent in furnishing an apartment for his pretty French sweetheart and in having a good time in the Montmarte and elsewhere.

The prosecuting attorney demanded that the jury punish him severely, but Maïtre Hesse, for young Parker, observed that youth would be youth and then described the American Express as an enormously rich concern which had made much money exploiting people on French soil, which had made millions in exchange speculation at the expense of the franc, which did not sufficiently watch its employes, else Parker could never have taken so much, and finally as a company which had too much money anyhow.

After his address the jury deliberated five minutes and acquitted Parker with the admonition that he should pay back the money when able to do so!

In The Times of 16th October, there is a report of an interesting case before Mr. Justice Darling and a Special Jury. It was a claim for damages for personal injuries received by a bridesmaid at a wedding reception in Stoke Newington. She had been singing on a platform, and in the act of descending therefrom she fell. The platform was reached by means of a ladder at an angle of 61 deg., with steps 4 inches wide. There were no handrails or side supports. The plaintiff claimed that by reason of the fall she was seriously impaired in health. The jury disagreed, and the case as reported is only valuable for the observations of the learned and witty Judge. Speaking of the allegation that the plaintiff suffered from neurasthenia as a result of her accident, Mr. Justice Darling said:

Nobody had traumatic neurasthenia when I was appointed to the Bench, but it has come upon us with the march of civili

zation. It is much more common since people have motor-cars which knock people down, and when they get up they have traumatic neurasthenia."

A misplaced comma in a newspaper summary of the will of the late Mr. H. F. House, a former Indian civil servant who led a retired life in a London hotel, caused it to be understood that the will ordered the destruction of all Mr. House's books, including rare quarto editions of Shakespeare.

The sentence, as published, read: "All his editions of Shakespeare, with his MS. notes, shall be burnt." It is now explained that the comma after Shakespeare should be omitted, making the sentence read: "All his editions of Shakespeare with MS. notes shall be burnt. The editions containing Mr. House's notes are modern and of no special value. All the quarto editions and other treasures are now being catalogued, and will shortly be offered for sale.

The

Canadian Bar Review

"Justitia, Officium, Patria.”

VOL. 1 TORONTO, DECEMBER, 1923. No. 10

NOTE AND COMMENT.

AT the last Annual Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association several suggestions were made regarding a change in the mechanical make-up of the REVIEW. It was felt that a longer page was desirable, and that its general appearance should be in keeping with that of the leading English and American publications of the kind. These suggestions are now being carried into effect, and, beginning with the January issue, the REVIEW will appear in a new dress. The cover will be changed in colour and design, the page enlarged.

Members wishing to preserve a complete set of the REVIEW are strongly urged to have their volumes bound in the official style, which will preserve uniformity notwithstanding the variation in the size of the page in Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. This is most important as otherwise Volume 1 may be nearly half an inch shorter than Volume 2.

The official style selected is a neat olive buckram with two labels and five bands.

WE learn that negotiations are now in progress between the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company looking to a special sailing of one of the steamers of the company

C.B.B.-VOL. I.-51

from Quebec in July next for the accommodation of members of the Association who intend to be present at the joint meeting of the American Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association in London next year.

WHAT was the matter with the editor of The Empire Review when he undertook to speak of the late Viscount Morley in the November number? Was he on the verge of a nervous collapse and so unable to measure the violence of his words, or was it simply a case of native bad taste rejoicing in an opportunity to speak despitefully of the dead? Whatever the cause, he has shown the most inglorious valour in disregarding a rule so generally observed by men of refinement and good-will-De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

John Morley, called to the peerage for distinguished service to the State and valued for his qualities of head and heart by many of the greatest men of his time, needs no defence at our hands. "Looking back I only know that men vastly my superiors, alike in letters and the field of politics, have held me in kind regard and cared for my friendship. I do not try to analyse or explain. Such golden boons in life are self-sufficing." Is not a man who can write such fine and tender words his own very best apologist?

But what are we to think of the man who, while charged with the editorial control of a publication aspiring to imperial influence, does not hesitate to defame one of the illustrious dead by applying to him such epithets as "Vain supercilious partisan," "Bloodless invertebrate," "Old Denyer?" Verily, to quote the language of this amazing essay in invective against itself, "of such stuff great Englishmen are not made "-certainly not great English editors! On reading it for the first time we were disposed to rub our eyes, fearing that by some strange mischance we had stumbled upon a bit of the journalistic literature commended by the New York newsboys to Martin Chuzzlewit on his arrival in America.

Doubtless the arbitrament of the ages on Lord Morley's claims to high distinction will not be influenced by anything the editor of The Empire Review might say, but in view of what he has actually allowed himself to say it would be well for our readers to consider the judicious tributes to the character of the departed statesman and littérateur in the Saturday Review of the 29th September last and the Law Times of the same date. It will be seen by the latter that Lord Morley was a member of the Bar. In early manhood he joined Lincoln's Inn, but he never entered upon active practice. From his "Recollections" we gather that this was a matter causing some shadow of regret to him in later life. History has to record, however, that he had the honour-an unusual one in the circumstances of being elected a Bencher of his Inn. That is a fair indication of what the legal profession in England thought of John Morley.

THE last Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the American Federation of Labour is worthy of attention in many ways. The lawyer who is disposed to read a bit outside the daily round will find it an interesting contribution to the literature surrounding that burning question of the moment: Does the complexity of modern social life demand a continuous intrusion by the State upon the domain of Industry in order that justice be done between employer and employed? The report seems to answer this question Yes and No. On the one hand it inveighs in good set terms against the widening of the sphere of State control, contending that "the largest freedom of action, the freest play of individual initiative and genius in industry cannot be had under the shadow of constant incompetent political interference, meddlesomeness and restriction." And it backs up this argument by the declaration that "the threat of State invasion of industrial life is real. Powerful groups of earnest and sincere persons constantly seek the extension of State