PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

OWING to the changes which in the course of the last seven years have been made in the various branches of the law with which this work is concerned, it has been found necessary in the present edition to rewrite and rearrange considerable portions of it. The object of the writers has been to produce something more than a mere agglomeration of head-notes. They have endeavoured to extract from the cases the principles which underlie them, and present those principles to the reader in a connected form. Where decisions have appeared to them questionable they have indicated their objections, and ventured to support those objections with reasons. They have endeavoured to reconcile the authorities where possible, and in cases of actual conflict have offered suggestions as to which of the conflicting authorities should be preferred. No case has been cited which has not been subjected to a careful independent examination. Certain portions of the former edition, which belonged perhaps rather to the law of property than to that of torts, have been omitted, as also has a considerable portion of the chapter on Misrepresentation, which has been rendered obsolete by the decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek. In conse

quence of that decision also the title of that chapter has been altered to Fraud. It was hoped that the Public Authorities justified the omission of the

That statute, however, while

Protection Act would have chapter on Notice of Action. repealing notice of action clauses in all public general Acts, leaves untouched private and local Acts, many of which contain similar clauses. Notice of action is therefore not altogether obsolete.

Among the more important cases of recent years is that of Smith v. Baker, in which the House of Lords cleared away certain misconceptions with respect to the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria. The law of libel continues to supply the most fruitful subject of legal controversy. Some five-and-twenty new cases have been dealt with in the chapter on Defamation. In Stuart v. Bell the doctrine of privilege has been carried to its furthest limits. In Ratcliffe v. Evans the liability of the originator of a slander for damage caused by its repetition has at length been treated in a satisfactory manner. Two recent decisions-Nevill v. Fine Arts and General Insurance Co., and South Hetton Coal Co. v. NorthEastern News Association-may cause some difficulty in the future, since in both of them observations were made in the Court of Appeal, which it is respectfully submitted were not altogether in accordance with the general tenour of authority. The earlier cases, however, were not overruled or questioned—they were ignored.

In the initial chapter is discussed the question of the various meanings to be assigned to the equivocal term "malice," particularly in connection with the important

group of cases arising out of trade competition and labour disputes, of which Flood v. Jackson is the latest. That case was argued on appeal in the House of Lords some months. ago, and from the length of time during which it has been standing for judgment, it is inferred that the questions involved have not been found easy of solution. Should the decision of the Court of Appeal be affirmed the consequences

will be far-reaching.

July, 1896.