The Gazette 1967/71

BOOK REVIEWS Civil Procedure and Evidence1 By P. St. J. Langan of Lincoln's Inn= and of Kings Inns, Dublin, Barrister-at-law. (London, Sweet and Maxwell. 1970). Pp. 374 and xx. Paperback, £2 nett. In the preface to this attractive text book the author states that the volume has been written primarily for students preparing for the new Bar Final Examination. The hope is expressed that it will be of use to others also, and particularly, in the growing number of university law faculties in which courses on procedure are being introduced. For law students who have to take this subject for their professional examinations, and for their lecturers and examiners, it is gratifying to read that "far from being so dry — as to be wholly unsuited to academic study, procedure can be one of the most fascinating of subjects, and the in creasing esteem in which it is held in university circles is marked by the fact that the 1970 Com parative Law Colloquium at Oxford (has been) devoted to it." One of the traditional ways of classifying law is that which involves the distinction between sub stantive and adjectival law. The former defines the right and liabilities of persons, the latter con sists of rules which regulate the way in which those rights and liabilities are defended and en forced in proceedings before the courts. Adjectival Law is, in its turn, divided into the law of pro cedure and the law of evidence. This book concentrates fairly heavily on pro cedure and rightly so. There is a relative dearth of work published on civil procedure while the rules of evidence have been developed very largely, and have been more strictly applied, in the criminal courts. Furthermore, the Law of Evidence has received ample attention from lawyers and jurists alike. While the constitution and jurisdiction of the various courts in England differ from their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland, neverthe less, students and practitioners here will find this volume beneficial and instructive in dealing with civil proceedings from the issue of the Summons down to judgment and its enforcement. The rules

both in England and Ireland are relatively the same on this broad highway from the commence ment of proceedings down to the final necessity for committal for contempt of Court. Accordingly, chapters 2 to 8, inclusive, and chapters 10, 12 and 13 of the text will be invaluable when used by the intelligent student or practitioner. Further more, the author has presented his thesis by clear and concise statements of the procedural position and has, where necessary, supported his com mentary by references to the wording of the rule or by citation of the relevant judicial authority. GERARD A. LEE. I CURRENT LAW DIGEST I ___________SELECTED_________| In reading this digest regard should be had to differences between Irish and English statute law. Affiliation Although a putative father cannot apply for variation or revocation of an affiliation order when the mother is resident abroad, a court dealing with an application on behalf of a mother so resident to enforce the order has extensive powers to alleviate hardship to a putative father who wishes to apply for variation or revocation [Regina v. Gravesend Justices. Q.B.D. The Times, 20 February, 1971.] Club A proprietary club with gaming machines cannot be registered by justices under the Gaming Act, 1968, the Queen's Bench Divisional Court decided on a prelimin ary point of law raised by club owners appealing against a refusal to register the club. [Tehran and Another v. Roston. Q.B.D. The Times, 19 February, 1971.] Conflict of Interests It is well established that English courts will not lend their aid to enforce directly or indirectly the revenue laws of another country, their Lordships said in dis missing an appeal by the claimants, the Government of the United States of America, from the order of Master Lubbock ordering that they be debarred from pursuing their claim to the goods the subject of the statement of the plaintiffs, Mr. Brokaw, of Chesterfield Hill, W., and Mrs. Shaheen, of Maryland, U.S.A., in their claim against the defendants, Seatrain U.K. Ltd for the return of the goods or their value and damages for their detention. [Brokaw and Another v. Seatrain U.K. Ltd and the Government of the U.S.A. claimants. Court of Appeal. The Times, 13 February, 1971.] 254