Page images





[ocr errors]



Thwaites (Charles).-Guide to Criminal Law and Procedure (7th ed.) 351
Topham (Alfred Frank).-See Westlake (John, K.C.).
Trade Disputes, Report of the Royal Commission on (n.)

117 Tudor's Charitable Trusts (4th ed. by L. S. Bristowe, Cecil A. Hunt, and Halford G. Burdett).

Turner (Morten).-See Yearly County Courts Practice, 1906.
Underhay (F. G.). - See Kerly (D. M.).
Underhill (Arthur). - Principles of the Law of Partnership (2nd ed.) 234

See Encyclopaedia of Forms.
Vaisey (Harry Bevir).-See Encyclopaedia of Forms.
Valery (M. Jules).—Traité de la Location des Coffres-Forts

350 Van Hoytema (J. P. R.) and Raphaely (Siegfried).—Digest of Law Reports of the late South African Republic

462 Vecchio (Giorgio del).— I presuppositi filosofici della nozione del diritto 115 Voigtländer (S. F.).-See Dernstedt (M.). Walker (R. A.) and Farran (E. C.).—Law relating to Land Purchase in Ireland

346 Ward (D.).— Practice at Parliamentary Elections (3rd ed. by S. G. Lushington, assisted by F. G. Coltman)

236 West (Leonard H.) and Scott (S. B.).—Kelly's Draftsman (5th ed.) · 350 Westlake (John, K.C.), assisted by Topham (Alfred Frank).—A Treatise on Private International Law (4th ed.)

93 White (Sir C. Arnold).-See Yearly Supreme Court Practice, 1906. Williams (James).—Dante as a Jurist

349 Williams (Joshua).-Principles of the Law of Real Property (20th ed. by T. Cyprian Williams)

332 Williams (T. Cyprian), assisted by Iselin (J. F.).- Treatise on the Law relating to Sale of Real Estate and Chattels Real

330 See Williams (Joshua). Wilshere (A. M.).—Elements of Criminal Law and Procedure. 234

-Outlines of Evidence and Procedure in an action in the K. B. D.

351 Wolstenholme's Conveyancing and Settled Land Acts (9th ed. by B. L. Cherry and A. E. Russell)

105 Year Books of Edward II.-Vol. III (ed. by F. W. Maitland)

-III, years XVIII & XIX.-(Ed. and translated
by Luke Owen Pike)
Yearly County Courts Practice, 1906, by G. Pitt-Lewis, K.C., and Sir C.

Arnold White (1906, ed. by His Honour Judge Woodfall and
E. H. Tindal Atkinson, assisted by Willoughby Jardine and
Morten Turner)

116 Yearly Digest, 1905.-(Ed. by G. R. Hill) , )

230 Yearly Supreme Court Practice, 1906 (ed. by M. Muir Mackenzie,

T. Willes Chitty, S. G. Lushington, and J. C. Fox, assisted by
P. M. Francke, E. Church Bliss and William W. Lucas)

107 Zocco-Rosa (Antonio).-L'Ius Papirianum da Glück ad Hirschfeld





[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]






[ (This table includes only recent cases speciully noted or discussed.]


Aiken v. Wisconsin, 118.

Lamb, Re, 5. Alfred Melson & Co., Lim., Re, 242.

Lolley's Case, 239, 240. Allen v. Flood, 117.

Loustalan v. Loustalan, 120. Armitage v. Att.-Gen., 240.

Macmillan & Co. v. Dent, 120. Automatic Self-cleansing Filter Syn- Manners v. St. David's Gold and

dicate Co. v. Cuninghame, 357. Copper Mines, Lim., 243. Bater v. Bater, 239, 240.

Nisbet & Potts' Contract, 124. Behrens v. Richards, II.

Pedlar v. Road Block Gold Mines of Bisgood v. Nile Valley Co., 243

India, Lim., 1o. Bomore Road, No. 9, Re, 125.

Price, Re, 10. Bonnard v. Dott, 241.

R. v. Hankey, 9. Bourne, Re, 125.

Richard Mills & Co., Lim., Re, 125. Cavalier v. Pope, 7.

Risdon Iron and Locomotive Works Chic, Lim., Re, 242.

v. Furness, 122. Clough v. Samuel, 5.

Ruben v. Great Fingall ConsoliConstantinidi Constantinidi & dated, 356, 357. Lance, 7.

Rushmer v. Polsue & Alfieri, Lim., Crigglestone Coal Co., Re, 242.

I 24 De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. | Scarborough v. Cosgrove, 8. v. Howe, 7.

Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay, 4. Elliott v. Crutchley, 122.

Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co., 118. Ellis v. Horace Marshall & Son, Stackemann v. Paton, 244. 244.

Stephens v. Mysore Reefs Mining Fickus, Re, 8.

Co., 10. Fuller v. White Feather Reward, Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Amalgamated Lim., 243

Society of Railway Servants, 119. Galbraith v. Poynton, 3.

Tasker, Re, 9. Geisse v. Taylor, 11.

Taylor's Agreement Trusts, Re, 125. General Accident Ass. Corp., Re, Thellusson v. Viscount Valentia, 242. 125

Torrens v. Walker, 358. German Date Coffee Co., Re, 1o.

Victorian Daylesford Syndicate v. Glasdir Copper Mines, Lim., Re, 123. Dott, 11. Grainger v. Gough, 7.

Westerman v. Schwab, 119. Gregory v. Duke of Brunswick, 117. Williams v. Howarth, 6. Haddock v. Haddock, 237

Woodall v. Clifton, 8.




No. LXXXV. January, 1906.



[ocr errors]

VINCE our last issue death has removed a very prominent

member of the Ontario Bar in the person of Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., of Toronto, Canada. Apart from his professional eminence, it is perhaps seldom in any community that the death of a private citizen has been followed by such an outburst of appreciation for his general personal qualities as has followed that of Mr. Robinson. The resolutions of public bodies, and leading articles in the local papers representing every variety of political view, together with the accounts the latter give of the crowds which attended the funeral service, all bear witness to the extraordinary esteem in which he was held by the members of the community in which he passed his life.

Mr. Robinson belonged to an old United Empire Loyalist family, some few particulars of which may not be without interest. The first member of it to come to America was Christopher Robinson, private secretary to the Governor of Virginia, Sir William Berkeley, who continued to reside in that colony till his death in 1693. He was the son of John Robinson of Cleasby, Yorkshire, an elder brother of Dr. John Robinson, Bishop of Bristol, and afterwards of London, who was British Plenipotentiary at the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. This Christopher Robinson was the grandfather of another Christopher who fought on the British side in the Revolutionary War, and at the peace removed with other loyalists to New Brunswick. In 1782, however, he came to Upper Canada with his family, and settled there. He was the father of Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, Bart., whose life bas been recently written by his son Major-General C. W. Robinson, C.B., and who occupied in his lifetime, as all who are at all acquainted with the history of Upper Canada are aware, a unique position in that province. Christopher Robinson, of whom we now write, was

[blocks in formation]

another son of his, and has worthily sustained the reputation of his father.

For many years Mr. Robinson had been acknowledged leader of the Bar of his native province, and it is not too much to say that during the last quarter of a century scarcely a single case of firstrate importance has been presented to the Courts of Ontario, or to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Ontario, in which Mr. Robinson has not appeared on one side or the other. He was also one of the British counsel on the Behring Sea Arbitration in 1893, and on the inore recent Alaska Boundary dispute; and the value of his services on these two occasions met with emphatic recognition at the time. But it may truly be said of Mr. Robinson, as is recorded of the great Roman jurist Papinian, that his integrity and high moral principle were as remarkable as his eminence in law.

What impression he has left upon his contemporaries in the latter respect may be best indicated by a few extracts from the numerous local publications. Chief Justice Falconbridge, addressing the Bar the day after Mr. Robinson's death, is reported as saying : ‘His career will furnish the right answer to those who have doubts whether it is possible to combine the position of a great advocate with that of a stainless Christian gentleman. He was the Chevalier Bayard of the Canadian Bar, sans peur et sans reproche.'

The Senate of his own University of Toronto, in the course of a resolution passed by them, say:

• The words spoken in respect to his father, the late Sir John Beverley Robinson, by the distinguished lawyer who succeeded him in the position of Chancellor of Trinity University, may well be applied to the son: “In every relation of life he was preeminent. His sweetness of temper, his gentleness of manner, and his courtesy were proverbial.” Blameless in private life and loved by all who knew him, he was in his professional life a man of stainless integrity.'

The Canadian Churchman writes : 'England had her Sir Philip Sidney; France her Chevalier Bayard ; and Canada has had her Christopher Robinson.'

Finally, as one sample of the way in which the Toronto daily papers spoke of him after his death, although he was not a man who ever courted public favour or held public office, we will cite an extract from the Toronto Globe:He attained the unquestionable leadership of the Bar through purely intellectual qualities, combined with an absolutely stainless sense of honour and duty that entitled him to be regarded as the Bayard of the profession in Canada.



He was of a type of gentleman always too scarce, and in the belief of many fast becoming extinct. We have no desire to give countenance to so hopeless a view, however. Let us believe rather that the professions, as well as private and public life, may always be able to point to their men of pure and irreproachable life-to their Christopher Robinsons.'

This Review does not profess to deal as a rule with current legal intelligence; but Lord Lindley's retirement after thirty years of judicial service must not pass without mention. Lord Lindley has given us an almost unique example in our time of the highest distinction in the profession being attained by purely professional merit and without any kind of aid from political influence or claims on any party in the State. We are sure that but few of us could say offband what Lord Lindley's political opinions are; we doubt whether he has ever given any one the right to speak of them in public. Not that we can object to political promotions when they happen, as in the case of at least one of Lord Lindley's colleagues, to light on exactly the right man. Still, Lord Lindley's way is the most excellent from a lawyer's point of view. The younger generation may be reminded that his first published work was of a severely theoretical character. Traces of it may be found in his standard treatises on Partnership and Companies. “That young man will never get business' was probably the comment, half a century ago, of any rule-of-thumb practitioner who cast an eye on the Introduction to the Study of Jurisprudence.'

The association of the hearth' with the permanent ownership or occupation of land as indicated in the note to Galbraith v. Poynton [1905] 2 K. B. 258, 259 (explaining the term 'a tenement of Old Auster’ at Chew Magna) has at least its analogue, if not its possible origin, in the ancient laws of Wales. The reference in those laws to the pen-tan-faen or fireback-stone is frequent. Thus the preservation of the records of fireback-stones, meerstones and mounting stones (meini-pentan a therfynfain ac esgynfain) has been committed to bards duly qualified' (Cyfreithiau Cymru, xiii, $ 97); 'three things preserve a memorial of land and homestead; a firebackstone (pentan-faen) &c.' (ibid. § 99); 'there are three dead witnesses as to land ... thirdly, the fireback-stone of the father, grandfather or great-grandfather of the demandant' (a thrydydd, pentanfaen tad y gofynwr neu un ei hendad neu un ei orhendad), ibid. § 227; 'there are three indispensables of a taeog (villanus); a fireback (pentan) ... &c.' (ibid. § 240). See also Loges Wallicæ, lib. ii ; cap. viii. § 49 ; cap. xxxvi. $ 31 ; cap. 1. § 1; where the stone is called lapis focarius.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »