buildings" within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1890. Compart R. S. O. 1897 c. 71, s. 14.

Specific Performance.]—The judgment in Van Praagh v. Everidge, 18 T. L. R. 593, noted 22 C. L. T. 266, where a purchaser at a sale by auction bid for and was declared the purchaser of a property he had no intention of bidding for, was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 220, on the ground that, the contract and conditions of sale signed by the auctioneer on behalf of the defendant on the defendant refusing to complete being erroneously dated 17th October, when the sale really took place on 18th November, there was not a sufficient memorandum under the Statute of Frauds. The Court also were evidently prepared to hold that in view of the purchaser's mistake as to the property he was bidding for the parties were never ad idem, but it became unnecessary to decide that point.

Trade Name.]-In Weingarten Brothers v. Charles Bayer and Co., 19 T. L. R. 239, the term "erect form " as applied. to corsets was held not to be a mere descriptive name, and its use by the defendants, in conjunction with scrolls and devices resembling those in prior use by the plaintiffs, and therefore calculated to deceive purchasers, was restrained.

Will.]-By the will in question in Waugh v. Cripps, 19 T. L. R. 238, the testator devised two houses to a daughter for life; after her death one house to a granddaughter and her heirs, and the other house to a grandson and his heirs; if either the granddaughter or grandson "should die without an heir their share is to go to the survivor's heir or heirs." It was held that the granddaughter and grandson took an estate tail in the houses devised to them respectively, the devise over to the survivor's heir or heirs shewing that heirs of the body was meant in the first part of the devise. But the same limited meaning was not given to the words "survivor's heir or heirs." -The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Pelham Clinton. v. Duke of Newcastle, 18 T. L. R. 7, noted 21 C. L. T. 497, was affirmed by the House of Lords: 19 T. L. R. 275.

EDITORIAL REVIEW.

The Ontario Assembly Bribery Charges.

The astounding charges made by a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario against another member, who is also one of the Lieutenant-Governor's advisers, have stirred the community to its depths, and revealed the rottenness of political partyism in Ontario to the eyes of the world. For, whatever view of the charges one may choose to take, the degradation of party politics is manifest. On the one hand, it is said that a member of the Executive Council has, with unblushing corruptness and unparalleled cynicism, paid, practically with his own hands, a sum of money to an opponent to purchase his support at a critical period of the life of the Administration. And on the other side it is alleged or suggested that the charges are unfounded and the outcome of a vile plot to injure the Government. There are no words to describe such a situation. The result of the inquiry into the charges, whether by a commission of Judges or a committee of the Assembly, will, of course, be awaited with the greatest anxiety. But, whatever the result, the Province stands disgraced by its legislators, on one side of the House or the other.

Rights of Critics and Those Criticized.

The curious and unusual refusal of the manager of a London theatre to admit the critic of the Times to the first representation of a new play by Mr. Henry Arthur Jones has given rise to a flood of correspondence and incidentally to the discussion of the legal rights of critics and managers. I seems to be well established that the owner of a theatre or other so-called "public" place of amusement or entertainment

has a right to refuse to admit any one, with or without cause, and even to expel without cause one who has already been admitted, and without returning him his money. So that the manager has the matter in his own hands, and, if exclusion of the critic is a punishment for previous unfavourable criticism, and a remedy against the like in the future, it may become the fashion to follow the example of the London manager. Provided the criticism be honest and fair, however damaging, there is no right of action against the critic. Merivale v. Carson, 20 Q. B. D. 275, is an instance cr the writers of a play suing a critic; the principles in issue were there discussed by Lord Bowen, who shews that no question of privilege arises, for privilege is a grant to some one of an immunity greater than is possessed by other persons, whereas the right to criticize belongs to the whole world, and the exercise of it is invited by those who write. So long as the commentator is honest in his intentions and expresses his views in a fair manner, it does not much signify what the views are. The critic must be careful what he says about matters of fact, though he may indulge his fancy in matters of opinion.

Prevention of Corruption by Secret Commissions.

The Prevention of Corruption bill (recently introduced into the House of Lords) is substantially the measure advocated by the late Lord Chief Justice (Russell) to restrain the spread of an insidious system of secret commissions. The proposal has been several years before the eyes of Parliament in slightly different forms. The present bill, backed by the Lord Chancellor, is probably as compact as is possible. In substance, the whole measure is contained in two sections. By the first it is enacted that a person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour rendering him liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a maximum of a year, or, alternatively, to a fine of a maximum of £500, or, if summarily convicted, rendering him liable to four months' imprisonment or a fine of £50, if he commits any of the following offences: (a) If, as an agent, he, without his principal's knowledge, accepts or obtains, or agrees

VOL. XXIII. C.L.T.

13

to do so, for any person, for himself or for any one else, any gift as an inducement or reward to do or forbear from doing any act or for shewing favour or disfavour to any one in relation to his principal's business. (b) If he corruptly gives or offers any gift to induce an agent to do or abstain from doing such acts as aforesaid. (c) If he gives an agent a false receipt, account, or other document which is intended to mislead the principal. A wide and general definition of "agent" embraces any person employed by or acting for another, and "principal" will include an "employer." Section 2 is important in that it lays down the requirement that prosecutions can only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for England or Ireland. The expenses of indictments will be as for indictment for felony, and a Court of Quarter Sessions is given jurisdiction. The bill applies to Scotland also, with certain special provisions. (London Law Times.)

Recent American Decisions

Damages.-Damages for mental suffering are held, in Kline v. Kline (Ind.), 58 L. R. A. 397, to be properly included in the compensation awarded to one upon whom an assault is committed by coercing him into abandoning a house by threats of shooting him with a gun which the assailant pointed at him.

Easement.-An adverse user of an easement for the period specified in the statute barring actions for the recovery of land is held, in Boyce v. Missouri P. R. Co. (Mo.), 58 L. R. A. 442, to raise a conclusive judicial presumption of a prescriptive right by lost grant.

Marriage. To excuse the breach of a promise of marriage. on the ground of illness, it is held, in Smith v. Compton (N. J. Err. & App.), 58 L. R. A. 480, that there must be such a disease or complication of diseases as renders the making of the marriage contract, and the consummation of the marriage by marital intercourse, impossible.

Master and Servant.-The act of an employee in charge of a gravel train, who, after having tried in vain to prevent

urchins from hanging to the end of the train by warnings. and threats, catches one of them and lectures him, is held, in Palmisano v. New Orleans City R.. (La.), 58 L. R. A. 405, not to render the master lis', where the child, upon being released, runs blindly in a direction converging with that of a coming car, and collides with the car, and is injured.

Injuries caused by the failure of a foreman, who has assumed the duty of warning a workman in the bottom of the trench when dirt is to be dumped into it by other workmen, to give the warning in a particular instance, is held, in McLaine v. Head and Dowst Co. (N. H.), 58 L. R. A. 462, not to render the master liable, since the master is under no duty to thus warn the employee.

Nuisance. The owner of a dwelling-house, which he himself occupies as a home, is held, in Swift v. Broyles (Ga.), 58 L. R. A. 390, to be entitled to just compensation for the annoyance and discomfort occasioned by noxious gases and other harmful and injurious substances sent out into the air by the maintenance of chemical works on adjoining premises.

The renewal by a tenant of his lease after the creation by a third person of a nuisance by his method of conducting his business, injuriously affecting the right of occupancy and the tenant's private property, is held, in Bly v. Edison Electric Illum. Co. (N. Y.), 58 L. R. A. 500, not to preclude the tenant from maintaining an action to abate the nuisance and to recover the damages for his injuries.

Proximate Cause.-A prior and remote cause is held, in Missouri P. R. Co. v. Columbia (Kan.), 58 L. R. A. 399, not to furnish the basis of an action for the recovery of damages, if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition, or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, and there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury.

Solicitor.-A contract between a wife and her solicitor, providing that, for his services in procuring an allowance of alimony and enforcing its payment, he shall receive a share