principles of conveyancing can be so readily studied, and it would be a mistake to obscure these by a too heavy sprinkling of cases. It is understood that this book has not yet been adopted by either Oxford or Cambridge for regular use in their respective law schools. The sooner this is done we think the better, for if any book is capable of giving life and reality to the dry bones of real property law this is the one. The student should of course have some book of precedents by him when reading, and for this purpose Clark's 'Students' Precedents in Conveyancing' is referred to throughout the book. This edition contains a new chapter giving a short account of registration of title under the Land Transfer Acts. B. L. C. The Commercial Code for the German Empire. Translated from the official text by BERNARD A. PLATT. London: Chapman & Hall, Lim. 1900. 8vo. xii and 370 pp. IF this translation of the New German Mercantile Code was intended as a joke in the nature of the Manuel de la Conversation' which, for some time, has wearied the readers of 'Punch,' Mr. Platt ought at least to have imitated the literal accuracy of Mr. Punch's contributor. Mr. Platt aims at being literal, no doubt, but his evident disinclination to take trouble of any kind frustrates his good intentions. The translation has been made as literal as is compatible with using the simplest possible English '—so runs the preface. A few specimens will show the simplicity of the English, and it is hardly necessary to add that these specimens, far from being literal, are mere distortions of the original text. 6 'Art. 57. An attorney must abstain from making use of any addition to his signature giving the idea of any procuration; he must only add a postscript to his signature explanatory of his holding and power of attorney.' Art. 97. A broker is not authorized to take a payment or any other thing owing through a contract.' 'Art. 356. When a debt guaranteed by pledge, surety, or any other manner appears in a current account, recognition of the settlement of the account does not prevent the creditor from trying to get paid by the guarantor, even if the amount credited to him in the account and the debt balance each other. 'If a third person makes himself jointly and severally liable with another for a debt brought into a running account, enactments of par. I for the recovery of a debt are applicable to him by analogy.' 'Art. 367. When a security payable to bearer which has been stolen. from its owner is lost, or has disappeared in some other way, or transferred or pawned to a trader who follows the business of a banker or changer, the good faith of the latter cannot be recognized if at the time of transfer or pawn the loss of the document has been published in the Deutsche Reichsanzeiger, either by public authority or by him who is bound to do so by the terms of the document, and if a year has not elapsed from the end of the year in which such advertisement took place . . .'.' Does Mr. Platt expect any reader, learned or unlearned, to understand any of these passages? Does he himself understand them? But there are other passages less unintelligible, though not less inaccurate. Thus we are told by art. 179 of the translation that shares may be made out to bearer, or may be made not transferable,' whilst according to the true and literal meaning The punctuation of these extracts is Mr. Platt's. of the German text share certificates may be issued to bearer or to named persons ('auf den Inhaber oder auf Namen lauten '). Again, art. 180 of the translation, which states that the capital of the company must amount to at least 1,000 marks,' entirely misrepresents the original section, which in no way refers to the capital of a company, but prescribes a minimum amount for each share in a company. The expression Werthpapiere,' which is a well-known technical term corresponding to the English term 'negotiable instruments,' is mistranslated in every place in which it occurs; being sometimes rendered by valuables' (arts. 1, 93, 363, 369), sometimes by Paper Securities' (arts. 381, 383, 400, 429, 462), and once by 'Securities' (art. 261). Whilst thus one technical German term is reproduced by three different English expressions, the English term 'agent' is, on the other hand, used as the equivalent for three German expressions entirely distinct from one another, each of them being moreover defined by the very code translated by Mr. Platt, these expressions being 'Prokurist' (defined by arts. 49-51), Handlungsagent' (defined by art. 84), and Kommissionär' (art. 383). These are only a few examples of the hopeless ignorance and gross carelessness of the author of this translation, but they suffice to show that serious criticism would be wasted on him. As it may, however, be hoped that some day a more competent person will undertake the task of translating the German Mercantile Code, a few hints as to some of the essential requirements for the usefulness of such an undertaking will not be out of place. To begin with, the bare text of the code is not intelligible without an introduction showing the relation in which it stands to the Civil Code and to other statutes on subjects connected with Mercantile Law which are in force in Germany. The new code -to a greater extent even than the code replaced by it-must be read together with the general law on the subjects with which it deals. Moreover, there are some branches of mercantile law which still remain outside of the code. Thus, whilst the Mercantile Code deals with private partnerships and companies limited by shares, the limited liability partnerships introduced by the Statute of 1892 (amended in 1898) are not referred to in any way. A German lawyer is of course expected to know these things, but an English reader who refers to the code, if left without any guidance on the subject, will necessarily be misled. A second point which a translator must not overlook is the fact that the readers who use his work, whether lawyers or merchants, are necessarily laymen as regards the law which it contains, and therefore not acquainted with the cross-references which must necessarily be read into every code. Some indication of the sections which explain other sections is therefore absolutely indispensable. There is finally a third point which in the case of an English translation is of importance. There are certain expressions corresponding to continental expressions which are used in English-speaking countries though not in England itself, and which, in the absence of appropriate terms belonging to English law in the narrower sense, seem preferable to new expressions or circumlocutions. Thus, for instance, the expression special partner,' which is familiar to American lawyers, is a much better translation for the German term Kommanditist' than any newly-invented term. The writer of this notice feels that he has given it more space than it properly deserves, but literary quackery is the worst of all quackeries, and the natural impulse to expose it when it occurs is too strong to be resisted. E. J. S. The Law and Practice as to Receivers appointed by the High Court of Justice. By WILLIAM WILLIAMSON KERR. Fourth Edition. By PERCY F. WHEELER and CHARLES BURNEY. London: Sweet and Maxwell, Lim. 1900. 301 pp. (108.) KERR on Receivers is too well-known a work to require description or much comment. It surprises one to learn from the preface that nine years have elapsed since the third edition appeared. The decisions since the date of that appearance seem to be all duly noted in the fourth edition in their proper places, and there are many of them. In many branches of the law as to receivers, for instance that of Equitable Execution, the law cannot be said to be settled, and the practice is altered, if not amended, from day to day. The editors bring up the alterations to March 12, 1900, the date of their preface. The preface says that 'in the present edition no alteration has been made in the arrangement of the work-and no one will complain on this score-nor has the original text been touched, except so far as the incorporation of the later decisions and the changes in the practice have rendered this unavoidable.' A little editing of the original text would perhaps improve the book, as it rather worries one to see the Court of Chancery' referred to in 1900 as if it were an existing tribunal. This, however, is only a small matter, and does not prevent the book from being one which will be found to be of the greatest assistance to the ever increasing number who seek a remedy in the appointment of a receiver. F. E. Limitations of Actions against Trustees and Relief from Liability for THIS work gives a concise and clear view of the present state of the law, in the English-speaking provinces of the Dominion, on the subjects named in the title. The cases-English, Irish and Canadian-are brought to date and are well handled. In an Appendix will be found the recent provincial legislation in relief of trustees (following the model of the Imperial Acts) together with the principal local statutes which bear on limitation of actions. A very full index concludes the volume. Written in an easy style, Mr. Anglin's book should commend itself as well to lay as professional readers. T. B. B. The Power and Duty of an Arbitrator. By FRANCIS RUSSELL. Eighth Edition. By EDWARD POLLOCK and the late HERBERT RUSSELL. London Stevens & Sons, Lim., and Sweet & Maxwell, Lim. 1900. La. 8vo. xlvii and 579 pp. (308.) No better editor of Russell on Arbitration could be found than the learned Official Referee who has made himself responsible for this edition. In preparing the text he had the assistance of the late Mr. Herbert Russell, and in preparing the forms that of Mr. Ernest M. Pollock. The result is an edition that appears to be greatly superior to its forerunners. A great deal of the matter in the former editions has been rendered obsolete by the passing of the Arbitration Act, 1889, and that part has been omitted or cut down, with the result that the bulk of the book is considerably reduced. Mr. Pollock and his coadjutors seem to have done their work with skill and diligence and the text leaves nothing to be desired. The forms, sixty-two in number, are most complete and will be found of the utmost value. The weakest part of the work is perhaps the index, which might with advantage have been made more analytical and discriminating. For instance, such a reference as Notice-meeting in reference, of, 119, 123, 139, 407' may involve looking up three places before the one required is discovered. The references should be subdivided into how to be given,' 'peremptory for each meeting,' 'forms of,' &c. Our equanimity has been not a little disturbed in our endeavours to find quickly various points upon which we have desired to test the work. When found they have all stood the test. It is unfortunate (though of course the editors are in no way to blame) that the edition left the printer's hands too late for the inclusion of Knowles v. Bolton Corporation [1900] W. N. 73, overruling Mackenzie v. Ascot Gas Co. (now fully reported [1900] 2 Q. B. 253). If the editors could have seen a full report of L. & N. W. R. Co. v. Walker, they would have realized that the decision of the House of Lords does not merely affirm that of the Court of Appeal. The opinions of the Lords were based on grounds that were scarcely noticed in the Court of Appeal. In conclusion we may add an expression of regret that the Arbitration Act, 1889, was not a more sweeping and better drawn measure. Had it cleared away all the various modes of proceedings in arbitrations under various statutes, provided a complete code for procedure and given the Court more general powers for getting over difficulties, Russell on Arbitration might have been much further reduced in size and arbitrations greatly facilitated. Some of the decisions on the Act of 1889 show how little attempt was made by its framers to provide for future difficulties. The profession owe a debt of gratitude to the learned Official Referee and those who have helped him in the production of the new edition of the standard work on Arbitrations. Company Precedents. By F. B. PALMER. Lim. La. 8vo. By this work Mr. Palmer may be said to complete the cycle of his Company Precedents.' In these Precedents he has furnished the legal and commercial world with forms for every stage and every vicissitude in the life of a company, from the cradle to the grave and beyond it in the resurrection of reconstruction. One department of a company's activities has of late, however, assumed such colossal proportions-to wit, borrowing on debentures and debenture stock-that the author has, not unreasonably, deemed the subject deserving of a separate volume. The debenture is indeed a notable example of the expansion of our law under the stimulus of commercial necessities; for practically the whole of the law and practice. comprised in this volume has originated in this manner. Like all Mr. Palmer's books it is primarily a book of forms, but the introductions and notes supply everything that the practical man is likely to need, and are illuminated by Mr. Palmer's unique experience. The author may be allowed to feel some natural gratification that Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Trading Bank [1898] 2 Q. B. 658, has affirmed the negotiability of the debenture to bearer, a view for which he has so long and strenuously contended. Part III. Debentures and Debenture Stock. Eighth Edition. London: Stevens & Sons, xlviii and 635 pp. (218.) Company Precedents. Part II. Winding-up Forms and Practice. By F. B. PALMER assisted by F. EVANS. Eighth Edition. London Stevens & Sons, Lim. La. 8vo. lxxxiv and 1174 pp. (328.) ANOTHER edition-the eighth-of these Winding-up Forms after a lapse of only three years testifies to their continuing popularity and makes comment almost superfluous. In this labyrinthian subject in which new practice rules, new scales of fees, new forms of orders and affidavit for ever amaze the bewildered practitioner, his only salvation lies in a book of this kind well up to date in all the niceties of practice. If a suggestion may be made, it is that rather more space should be given to voluntary winding-up, now the favourite mode of liquidation. : A Treatise on the Principles of the Law of Compensation. By C. A. CRIPPS, Q.C. Fourth Edition. London Stevens & Sons, Lim. 1900. lxiii and 516 pp. (258.) MR. CRIPPS's book is recognized as one of the best of the many books on the Law of Compensation, and there are few men whose practical knowledge of the subject exceeds that of the learned author. It is a matter for regret, therefore, that more care has not been displayed in the preparation of this edition. Some of the small errors that appeared in the third edition, even one to which we called attention in our review of that edition, are repeated, and the new matter has not been very happily worked in. For instance, In re Morgan & L. & N. W. Ry. Co. [1896] 2 Q. B. 469, is, so far as we can ascertain, nowhere referred to. That case has always seemed to us difficult to reconcile with Penny v. Penny, and we should have welcomed some comments upon it from Mr. Cripps. Nor can we find any reference whatever to the provisions for compensation on taking land under ss. 9 and 10 of the Local Government Act, 1894. Several other cases of greater or less importance are insufficiently referred to, being simply added to lists of cases in notes without any attempt being made to incorporate in the text, or even in the notes, the new points decided by them. Such are In re Spillers & Baker Lim., and Leatham & Sons Arbitration, Gonty (cited twice as Gouty) M. S. & L. Ry. Co. (upon question of costs in the Court of Appeal), Miles v. G. W. Ry. Co., Knowles v. Bolton Corporation, and L. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Walker. Arbitrations are frequently held in the country where access cannot readily be had to reports, and a mere reference to a case without any statement of its effect is in such circumstances of little use. The usefulness of the book has been added to by the inclusion in the appendix of several statutes 'to which the author has found it necessary in his practice to refer.' Beyond this we have not been able to discover any substantial differences between the present edition and its immediate predecessor. V. The Law of Bailments. By EDWARD BEAL. With notes to Canadian cases by A. C. FORSTER BOULTON. London: Butterworth & Co.; Canada: The Carswell Co., Lim. 1900. Ix and 775 pp. (278.6d.) WE have often thought that there was room for a good book on the English Law of Bailments. It is somewhat surprising that since Sir W. Jones wrote his admirable essay in 1781, the last edition of which appeared in 1833, the subject has never received adequate treatment in a separate |