in the mind of his Majesty, a sufficient and worthy reason for the high honour to which he had called him. (Laughter.) Well, that shews that on occasion modesty pays; and, certainly, whether the words were truly modest or not, they succeeded in presenting something very like modesty, though I cannot recognize it myself in my mind at the moment. I thank Sir Robert Finlay, and you, gentlemen, most sincerely for your kindness. (Cheers.)

EDITORIAL COMMENT.

OBSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS BY LADDERS. Frequently when one is walking along the streets of any city or town he is kept busy dodging ladders used by painters who are engaged in painting the exterior of buildings. In some instances one workman is found holding the foot of the ladder to prevent it being disturbed, but often no such care is taken, and passers-by are forced to get around these obstructions the best way possible, or else run chances of receiving a plentiful distribution of paint. This, no doubt, has given rise to the well-known superstition. We see nothing in any bylaws of the city of Toronto dealing with such obstructions: but recently the question was raised in one of the English courts. There the solicitor for the defence urged that it was the custom time out of mind to allow builders and painters to place their ladders against the walls, and often to allow them to remain there for a considerable period while the work was in progress. The magistrate, after hearing the evidence as to the inconvenience of frequently removing ladders, refused to make a conviction, but an appeal has been entered. The question is mainly one of reasonableness as to the length of time the ladders are allowed to remain on the sidewalk; but there is no doubt that the patience of pedestrians is frequently much tried in this way.

COUNSEL FEES AS DISBURSEMENTS. The plaintiff in Sadd v. Griffin was a solicitor who sued to recover a balance claimed to be due to him for fees, charges and disbursements for work done as defendant's solicitor. Over a month prior to the action being brought he had delivered a signed bill of costs. Some payments were made on account, and subsequently the plaintiff recovered judgment by consent for £185. Subsequently defendant took proceedings to have the bill taxed, asking that judgment should stand only for such amount as might be found due on taxation. An order for taxation was made. The whole amount of the bill was for £300, in which were included upwards of £50 for counsel's fees. These fees had not been paid when the bill was delivered, nor when the order for taxation was made. The Master disallowed the counsel fees on taxation, but upon objections being

brought in to the disallowance, he allowed the question of these fees to stand over to give the plaintiff an opportunity to pay them. The plaintiff did so, and then the taxing Master in his final certificate allowed the fees. The defendant then objected to the allowance of these items, and Jelf, J., refused to order a review of the taxation. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, the question being whether "disbursements" in section 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, was confined to moneys paid at the time when the bill was delivered, or included moneys which the solicitor was liable to pay. In giving judgment, the Court referred to Davis v. Earl of Dysart, 21 Beav. 132, where it is laid down "that the bill of costs as between party and party is always susceptible of being added to or varied after it is brought in for taxation. It differs in this respect from a bill of costs under the statute, where an alteration cannot be made as against the client after the bill has been brought in for taxation except with the client's consent. In taxation between party and party, the bill is analogous to a mere state of facts, and being a claim by one party against another may be amended in any way, and at any time before the taxation is concluded." Under the Act, when the solicitor sues he does so on the bill delivered and no other. There is but one bill, and its delivery is a condition precedent to payment. Solicitors Act requires the bill to include "disbursements," which is interpreted according to Murray as "that which has been disbursed; money paid out; expenditure." In Holmes v. Penny, 9 Ex. 588, Parke, B., says: "We never entertained any doubt that an attorney cannot charge for counsel fees which have not been paid." In Re Thompson, 30 Ch. D. 448, Lord Justice Cotton says: "It has been well established that when a solicitor sends in his bill he gives the client to whom he sends it a right to have that bill taxed. Even where objections have been made to particular items of a bill delivered, and the solicitors have with the assent of the client taken back the bill for the purpose of reconsideration, and have struck out certain items, the Court has held that the bill to be taxed must be the bill as it was originally sent in, and not the bill as amended. (Re Heather, L. R. 5 Ch. 694.) There is one bill intended by the Solicitors Act, whether for the purpose of payment without action or taxation, or for the purpose of action, or for the purpose of taxation. The Court, therefore, held that for the purposes of

The

meant

taxation under the Solicitors Act, "disbursements payments actually made before the delivery of the bill, and that any sums claimed in the bill as "disbursements" and not paid over before its delivery must be disallowed.

EMPLOYERS OPENING PRIVATE LETTERS OF EMPLOYEES. -Many employees have their private letters addressed to their place of business "in care of .." When such letters are marked "private" little difficulty is likely to arise, but if there is nothing to indicate the personal nature of the letter, then a question may arise whether or not the employer is justified in opening the letters. For this reason many employers forbid their employees to receive any private correspondence at the business address of the employers. Others make express agreements that all correspondence of the employees unless marked "private" shall be considered the property of the employers, and may be opened by them or their authorized agent. Sometimes letters are written by clients to students or clerks in a law office who have charge of some particular matter, addressing such letter in the care of the solicitors. If a letter is addressed to the manager of the employers, or to some responsible clerk, it is hardly to be expected that the solicitors or the employers will allow such letters to remain unanswered, as the letters may deal with professional or business matters of pressing importance. Recently a case of this nature was tried in one of the English County Courts, where the plaintiff, who was the manager of a firm, brought an action against the firm to recover damages for opening two letters which had been addressed to him while in their service. The letters were addressed in care of the defendants, but were not marked in any way to shew that the letters were of a personal nature. It happened that one of these letters contained a complaint regarding some goods which had not been delivered, while the other letter asked for the repayment of a loan which had been made to the plaintiff. At the trial, the Judge expressed himself as doubting whether the manager of the business had any property whatever in letters addressed to him at the office in the course of business, suggesting that they must belong to the employers. The only letters which the manager could claim would be those marked "private" or personal." The jury disagreed, the question of the property of the letters having been treated as a question of fact.

was.

THE SOCIETY OF COMPARATIVE LEGISLATION.—At the annual meeting of the Society of Comparative Legislation, held in London in July last, Lord Rosebery presided. In opening the meeting he said that the work of the Society seemed to be so necessary in these days of superabundant. legislation, that it was marvellous that it should be left to a private Society to do what it did. The first work of the Society was to give a full and accurate summary of each year's legislation in the British Empire, the United States and foreign countries. Let them consider what work that There were sixty Legislatures within the British Empire itself; there were some fifty Legislatures in the United States; and besides that there were the various Legislatures of Europe. All these Legislatures working-more especially our own-full speed ahead, produced the greatest possible, number of Acts of Parliament in the year. In 1906, for example, there were no fewer than 2,000 laws or ordinances passed within the British Empire, of which, probably, 99 per cent, were curtailments or infringements of the liberty of the subject. That was stupendous, and it preached, as from a text, the necessity of the Society. We had passed from the era of emancipation to the era of construction. The more important portion of the laws passed now were laws of construction, laws aimed at moulding human society in a particular and beneficent direction, and if one school had its way, they would aim still more at constructing a new society on the ruins of the old. At any rate, whether they went so far as that or not, they could not shut out from themselves the prospect that increasingly the Legislature would endeavour to raise and fortify a new structure of society. somewhat empirically, by means of legislation. He watched that with some anxiety because he belonged to that small school-perhaps he ought not to mention it in the Law Society's Hall-which did not believe that laws in the long run could greatly ameliorate humanity. He was not sure that he did not incline to that small heresy-if it were a heresywhich believed that the State was most fortunate which achieved its own development by the character and efforts of its citizens, as little as possible supported and guided by legislation. At any rate, he was certain that the progress of that State which was enabled so to develop itself, would be more sure and more abundant than that of the State which rested on legislative measures for the achievement of its destinies.