followed, swift and dire. The household slave is cast out to live in the field, and is cursed above all animals. To prevent any communication between him and humanity thereafter, each had to watch diligently the other-the man to watch the venomous head, the serpent the crushing heel.

The serpent had not eaten of the forbidden fruit, even if the prohibition extended to him, of which there is no evidence. All he had done was at the worst to misconstrue a statute which Eve and Adam could interpret as well as he, but he paid the penalty of the sharper intelligence which leads astray the more stupid. Numerous examples are to be found in history as well as in fable of the clever underling corrupting the superior whose intelligence was inferior, whether from tender years or natural defect. The underling has always suffered, and rightly; superior intelligence has its duties as well as its privileges. The punishment of a house-servant by sending him out to work with the slaves in the field was perhaps the most severe possible (it would not pay to kill a slave); he had unending toil under severe taskmasters, and lived ever in dread of the ergastulum. Death itself was often preferred.

Then came the mistress-the woman's punishment was greater than that of the man-until quite modern times it has always been so; now perhaps the pendulum has swung the other way. If a man had suffered the faith of Edith Cavell, little would have been heard of it, and no woman murderer has been executed in Ontario for many years.

In the early English law the male criminal was drawn to the gallows and hanged, the female was drawn to the gallows and burned at the stake. A servant killing a master, if a man, was hanged; if a woman, was burned to death, although both were guilty of "petit treason." A wife killing her husband was burnt at the stake as a traitor; a man for killing even the King was not. Blackstone in vain attempts to make this difference due to a regard to "the decency due the sex." It was simply brutal disregard for what was considered the inferior part of humanity.

The crime of Eve and the crime of Adam were the same, but Eve was more severely punished by being made subject to the mastership of her fellow convict, as well as in undergoing torture when performing the function which she alone could perform and which must needs be performed if the race was to come into existence. The punishment of death was commuted to one of servitude for life, with periodical torture.

Adam's sentence was comparatively light; he must work hard for a living-no slavery, no torture-followed by ultimate death.

The trial is over, the prisoners convicted and sentenced, but the indirect effect is still to come. Adam had become as one of the Gods from the knowledge he had acquired, he had been sentenced to death at some time, and it must be made certain that he would not avoid this death.

There was a tree in the park of whose qualities we now hear for the first time-the tree of life, which was planted in the midst of the park. It is mentioned incidentally in an earlier part of the story, but no hint is given of its marvelous properties. Now it appears that if Adam should eat of the fruit of this tree he would live on indefinitely, notwithstanding the sentence. To prevent this evasion, Adam is turned out of the park and prevented from ever entering it again. No doubt Eve went with him; she afterwards bears him children; but we have no account of the serpent's fate. It is to be presumed that he also was ejected, otherwise he could not keep an eye on the heel of the seed of the woman.

Of the historical truth of this story I express no opinion; but it is plain that the writer of it believed that what was done was wholly right-nay, more, that it would appeal to his hearers as being wholly right; and if not above, of a surety not below, the current ideas of law and justice.

It must therefore have been written when the law-giver and the law-interpreter were one and the same person, when the Judge was peripatetic and examined into crimes personally, when the accused might be compelled to convict himself, when the slave had no rights, and when the woman was also an inferior creature, whose punishment might and should be greater than that of the man in like case offending. Whatever be the conclusion as to the time of the first telling of the tale, it forms an interesting study in comparative jurisprudence.

REVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, FOR THE LAST YEAR.

WILLIAM N. GEMMILL.1

No other court offers as many valuable suggestions to the student of criminal procedure as the English Court of Criminal Appeals. England existed many centuries without such a court. If a man was convicted in a nisi prius court, his only appeal was to the Home Secretary for mercy. Sometimes persons were convicted by recorders and judges for offenses of which they were not guilty. Because of this, Parliament was led, in 1907, to create the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The creating act provided that the court should consist of not fewer than three, nor more than five judges appointed from the King's Bench. Appointments were to be made by the Lord Chief Justice, with the consent of the Lord High Chancellor.

The Lord Chief Justice generally presides over the court. During the last year five judges sat in the court most of the time. It is the most informal court in the world. When one has been convicted of a crime, whether in London or upon one of the circuits, he may apply at once to the presiding judge for an appeal. If the appeal is allowed. the whole record of his case will be at once transferred to the Court of Appeals. If the appeal is denied, the defendant may then apply directly to the Court of Appeal, for leave to appeal. If leave is denied. there, such denial operates as an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. There is no delay in preparing a transcript of the record for the original record is transferred at once to the court above. The prisoner may always accompany his appeal, and may often be heard in open court by the judges of that high court. It often happens. that the defendant in appealing acts in his own behalf and without. counsel. The whole proceeding is informal-no briefs or abstracts. are prepared-and judges and counsel address themselves at once to the alleged errors.

Appeals may be taken either from the judgment of conviction or from the severity of the sentence. If the court finds that the defendant has been wrongfully convicted, the judgment of the trial court is quashed. If it finds that the defendant has had a fair trial, but that the sentence imposed is too severe, the sentence is reduced.

'Judge of the Municipal Court, Chicago.

If it finds the defendant had a fair trial, but a wrong judgment was entered, it enters a proper judgment. Where a defendant has appealed from the severity of the sentence, the court may increase or decrease the sentence. By reason of this informality of procedure, the court is able to administer justice with greater certainty and expedition than other courts of appeal.

It is wrong to conclude, however, that as a court of appeal it pays less attention to technical errors, and affirms judgments with greater certainty than other Appellate Courts. Quite the opposite is true. No Appellate Court in the United States sets aside as large a per cent of the judgments of the trial court reviewed by it as does this highest court of England. From August 18, 1914, to December 20, 1915, the English Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of 96 cases. Of this number the judgments of the trial court were affirmed in 28 cases, quashed in 34 cases, and the sentences reduced in 34 cases. In other words, 71% of the judgments of trial courts reviewed were set aside, 35% of the judgments quashed, 35% reduced, and only 29% affirmed. Of the number of cases reviewed, ten were appeals from judgments of conviction for murder. In all but one of these cases the death sentence had been imposed, and in all but two the judgments of the trial court were affirmed. In one, the conviction was quashed, and in the other the penalty was changed to manslaughter.

Owing to the War in Europe, some exceedingly interesting legal questions have arisen, both in the civil and the criminal courts, during the last year. There has been very much discussion during the last few months in the English, French and German courts, as to what are the rights of an alien before these several courts. Can an alien sue or defend in the courts of an enemy? This question has frequently been raised during the year in all three of these belligerant nations. The French courts have repeatedly held that a German arrested in France can neither be made plaintiff or defendant in a law suit in the courts of France during the pendency of the war. The English courts have taken the same position, but within the last few weeks there has been appointed in England a body of men called controllers, who are authorized to take possession of the property of an alien enemy, residing in England, and administer it much as it might be administered by a receiver, to pay the debts, and to hold the balance for the alien, to be delivered at the close of the war. Germany has not gone so far as either France or England, but has frequently permitted aliens both to sue and defend in her courts. Recently,

however, controllers somewhat like those in England and France have been appointed.

In the criminal courts many persons have been indicted upon the charge of trading, or attempting to trade, with an alien enemy. This is a serious offense, under the English law, and in one case during the year the person found guilty was sentenced to death.

Nicholanus Emil Ohlers was convicted at Durham, December 9, 1914, of high treason, and sentenced to death. He was a German by birth, but had lived in England thirty years. In 1905 he was naturalized and became a British subject. A few years ago, he was appointed German Consul at Sunderland. In November, 1914, he was accused of furnishing aid and comfort to the King's enemies. The circumstances were as follows: On August 1st, Germany declared war on Russia; on August 3rd, she declared war on France; and on August 4th, England issued her ultimatum to Germany. On the same day the defendant, who was at Durham, received a telegram from the German Consul at London, which read as follows:

"Have all able men from 17 to 45 find way to Germany."

On August 5th, the London Daily Mail announced that war had been declared by Germany against England at seven o'clock P. M. on August 4th. During the day of August 5th, the defendant met several Germans and tried to persuade them to return to Germany and enlist in the German army. To one of these men he gave money for that purpose. On the trial, the defendant admitted that he had seen in the daily papers on the morning of August 5th the announcement that war had been declared by Germany, but said he did not believe it, and thought that even if war had been so declared, yet under the law sufficient time would be given for the departure from England of all Germans who sought to return to their native land. He pleaded that he had no intention to violate the law. This conviction was quashed because the trial judge improperly told the jury that it made no difference what was the intention of the defendant, and that if he committed the acts after war had been declared, he was guilty.

M(owing to official secrecy, the name of this defendant is suppressed) was convicted for treason on June 4, 1915, and sentenced to be shot. He was charged with attempting to communicate information as to the number and movements of certain troops by sending a letter to an enemy who was then living in a neutral country. He had written two letters to X, both in German. Upon the trial it was ascertained that the information contanied in the letters was nearly all incorrect, and that had the party to