frère est un ami donné par la nature so well attested as in the case of the late Sir Harold Smith, K.C. and Lord Birkenhead-indeed the quality of the intercourse between the brothers was unusually fine. "For a brother to write of his brother must always be a task of delicacy," observes Birkenhead in a touching tribute to the memory of the deceased, published in a recent number of the Sunday Times. And thus he proceeds: "He was thirty-three years old when he entered Gray's Inn. He had not been specially trained for the Bar. I was able to give him little help; for at the Bar nearly everyone, unless closely connected with an important firm of solicitors, must depend upon his own powers. His career was one of extraordinary success, and after twelve years he found himself in a position to take silk without either grave risk or excessive self-confidence. . . . He was most mercifully spared the knowledge of the nature of his ailment and of the certainty of his death until the night before he died. He had little suffering except that which must always follow upon an operation so deep-seated. But an accumulation of terrible physical symptoms told at the end their plain tale to a mind so acute. And the night before his death there came a complete realisation. He sent first for his doctor and thanked him for his kindly and friendly services, adding: "I see now from the first you were set a hopeless task." He then asked to see me, and talked to me for twenty minutes with complete composure and fortitude. I do not, for reasons which are plain, set out that talk here; but I would add that he said to me: 'I feel nothing of the Dr. Johnson terror of death. I am completely happy and comfortable, but I would like to have played a longer hand in the game.' To me it has happended in the short period of six months to stand at the graveside of two dear and strong brothers, both younger than myself. Of my brother Captain Sydney Smith I say nothing in this place; but I have written this of Harold because it grieves me that such injustice should be done to his memory as to suppose that he was some faint re-echo of myself. He was, on the contrary, a man who gave strength and had need to derive it from no other. My own life is indefinably weakened by his death." People often have memorials erected to commemorate their worthy deeds, but not often are memorials willingly erected which commemorate evil deeds. In Toronto in the wall enclosing Osgoode Hall on the east side, there is to be found an involuntary memorial which commemorates the antics of a one-time fractious student. It came into existence in this way. Years ago there was attending the law school an Irishman who was of "the agin the government" type -and at the particular part of the wall in question there was a gate. The government of the day, in the person of the Principal of the Law School, for some reason satisfactory. to himself, forbade the students to use this particular gate, and required them to enter the grounds at the main gate about 20 paces to the south. Moved by his "agin the government" complex this Irishman refused to obey and the gate was therefore locked. Nothing deterred this active young Celt proceeded to jump over it daily, and in order to obstruct his activity the gate was removed, and a brick wall substituted; but this also proved no obstacle to this young Celt's agility, and he used to climb over it rather than demean himself by conforming to the law. of the Principal. One bright morning, however, he proceeded to climb over as usual when he discovered that "the government" had placed very securely on the top of this part of the wall a lot of broken glass, and out of respect to his "pants" rather than to the law, this refractory student was compelled to admit the government had triumphed. But the particular panel with the glass on the top remains to this day as a memorial of a Refractory Law Student, who no doubt rejoices in the reflection that he put the government to a lot of useless trouble and expense. NOTES. NEW BRUNSWICK LIQUOR EXPORTERS' ACT-WARRANT-CERTIORARI.-In Hetherington v. Security Export Co., the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (July 23rd, 1924) allowed an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada reversing a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick.1 The case involved the construction of the New Brunswick Liquor Exporters' Taxation Act, 12 Geo. V. c. 3. By section 3 a tax is imposed on all liquor kept for export with certain exceptions. By section 4 such tax must be paid within a prescribed time to the Provincial Secretary-Treasurer, and (secs. 6 and 7) in default of payment the amount of the tax may be levied under a warrant signed by him, or he may take steps to recover the same by legal proceedings. Under the Act the Attorney-General has power to appoint a Liquor Export Inspector to carry out the provisions of the Act. On the report of the Inspector the Attorney-General fixed an amount of tax as payable by the respondent company upon liquor kept by them 'See the case as reported in [1923] S. C. R. 539. for export, and in default of payment directed a distress warrant to issue, which was signed by the Provincial Secretary-Treasurer. The respondents moved for a writ of certiorari to remove the warrant into the Supreme Court of New Brunswick that it might be quashed on the ground that the statute was ultra vires. The Court refused the motion, and the respondents appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reversed the decision of the Court below. The Provincial Secretary-Treasurer appealed to the King in Council. In the Supreme Court of Canada Anglin and Mignault, JJ., dissented from the opinion of the majority of the Court, which held that the act of the Provincial Secretary-Treasurer in signing such warrant is judicial and not ministerial merely, and that being so certiorari will lie to bring the proceedings before the Supreme Court of New Brunswick for review. The Judicial Committee (Lord Buckmaster, Lord Dunedin, Lord Phillimore, Lord Carson and Lord Darling) affirmed the view of the dissenting Judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, holding that upon a proper interpretation of the Act in question the duties of the Provincial Secretary-Treasurer thereunder are ministerial and not judicial, and that a writ of certiorari was not the proper remedy. It is worthy of note that Anglin and Mignault, JJ., relied on the opinion of Fletcher-Moulton, L.J., in Rex v. Woodhouse, where he held that the process of certiorari did not apply in the case of a warrant to enforce a poor rate, even though the rate was one which could itself have been questioned by certiorari. C. M. LIABILITY OF PROVINCIAL MINISTER OF THE CROWN FOR DOMINION INCOME TAX.-In the case of Caron v. The King the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the 1st August, 1924, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada3 affirming a decision of Audette, J., in the Exchequer Court.* The defendant, who was Minister of Agriculture for the Province. of Quebec, was assessed and taxed under the Dominion Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments, in respect of his salary as a Minister of the Crown and his sessional indemnity as a member of the legislature of the Province. He contended that the Income War Tax Acts were ultra vires the Parliament of Canada, and that in any event he was not liable thereunder to tax in respect either of his official salary or his sessional indemnity. Audette, J., gave judgment for the Crown, 2 [1906] 2 K. B. 501. 3 Reported in 64 S. C. R. 255. 5 and his decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The latter Court delivered a unanimous judgment holding that the case was governed by the decision in Abbott v. City of St. John, in which case it was held that the Provinces had a right to impose income tax upon officials of the Dominion Government residing in the Province in respect of their official incomes. The defendant obtained special leave to appeal with the above result. C. M. EXAMINATION OF PARTY BEFORE TRIAL.-In Brown & Seccomb v. Sharfman et al, Gummere, C.J., dealing with an application to compel a party in an action to answer questions on an examination before trial at the instance of the other party, made the following observations: "It is no part of the function of counsel, in fact it is unethical for counsel, to advise his client not to answer questions which are relevant and material to the issue. The proper course for counsel to pursue in an examination of that kind is to object to all questions which, in his opinion, are incompetent, irrelevant or immaterial, and then, when the Commissioner has returned the testimony, to move before the Court to strike out all questions and answers to which he has objected at the time they were submitted and which he considers illegal." The general rule prevailing in the American Courts as to the privilege of a witness to refuse to answer may be found in Abbott's Trial Brief, 2nd ed. at p. 136. "The privilege is personal to the witness unless the question is not pertinent, and may be waived by him, and a party cannot avail himself of the Court's erroneous refusal to allow it." (Abbott, p. 136). It was held in People v. Brown (28 Am. Rep. 183), that the privilege may be claimed by counsel where the witness is a party to the proceedings. But in State v. Pancoast (35 L. R. A. 518), the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that even where the witness is the party defendant he cannot claim his privilege through his attorney; although it is proper for his attorney to suggest to the Court that the witness be apprised of his constitutional rights. C. M. LA RECEPTION DU BARREAU DU CANADA A PARIS. Dès le lundi, 28 juillet, les membres des délégations des barreaux des Etats-Unis d'Amérique et du Canada affluaient à Paris. Les avocats canadiens s'inscrivaient aux bureaux du Commissaire Général du Canada, où l'Honorable Philippe Roy les acceuillait avec infiniment de bonne grâce et où ils retrouvaient comme un coin de leur pays. Le groupe canadien avait à sa tête l'Honorable J. E. Martin, Assistant Juge-en-Chef de la Cour Supérieure de la Province de Québec et VicePrésident de l'Association du Barreau canadien. C'est à lui, tout d'abord, que doit revenir le mérite du succès de la réunion de Paris. Il fut d'ail leurs admirablement secondé par l'Honorable Edouard Fabre-Surveyer, Juge de la Cour Supérieure a Montréal et Secrétaire honoraire de l'Association. Quoique les fêtes officielles ne fussent pas encore commencées, quelques avocats furent conviés, ce jour-là, au déjeuner mensuel de l'Associa tion Nationale des avocats de France, et purent ainsi prendre un contact immédiat avec un grand nombre de nos confrères du barreau français. Tout de suite, une sympathie très visible s'établit entre les représentants des deux barreaux. Ce fut un échange d'informations sur l'organisation des systèmes judiciaires respectifs, sur le fonctionnement des tribunaux. la vie et les habitudes des avocats, les sources de nos lois et les principes de nos législations. Tous furent à la fois surpris et charmés de voir jusqu'à quel point ils se ressemblaient et que le rôle d'avocat façonne des mentalités identiques et des esprits dirigés vers un but unique, qui est la recherche et le maintien de la justice. Tous en étaient d'avance convaincus; mais ce fut une satisfaction particulière pour chacun de s'en rendre compte personnellement. Quelques avocats adressèrent la parole sur des questions concernant l'Association, car on avait tenu que la réunion conservât son caractère habituel. Cependant, le Président, Maître Appleton, souhaita en quelques mots la bienvenue aux représentants des barreaux étrangers et, au nom de l'Association canadienne, l'Honorable Fabre-Surveyer répondit en soulignant, très heureusement, la confraternité d'idées et d'opinions qui s'était établi tout d'abord entre les convives, et en ajoutant qu'il faisait bon venir en France retremper ses forces et les aguerrir pour continuer dans le monde les luttes de la liberté et du droit. C'est le lendemain 29 juillet dans la grande Salle des Pas Perdus du Palais de Justice, qu'eut lieu la réception du Barreau de Paris, qui inaugurait la brillante série des fêtes officielles. Il était difficile de concevoir une plus imposante réunion. Dans ce décor impressionnant par ses souvenirs historiques, et devant la foule considérable des avocats des Etats-Unis, du Canada et de Paris, Maître Manuel Fourcade, Bâtonnier de l'Ordre des avocats, prit place sur une tribune où se groupaient à ses côtés Messieurs Hughes, Secrétaire d'Etat des Affaires Etrangères des Etats-Unis, président de l'Association du |