pending, and that, if they do seek his assis tance, it is generally in the last stages of the suit. . . . One is surprised to learn from these lec tures that in the Japanese courts they have no system of pleading by which the issues to be tried between the parties are defined, and that neither party knows with any degree of accuracy what his opponent's case or defense is until trial, when the judge, by oral ques tions, elicits what are the real points in con troversy. There is no such thing as a pre liminary examination of the parties for dis covery, or a preliminary production of docu ments in the possession of the parties, and finally the examination of witnesses is con ducted by the Judge and not counsel for the parties. . . . Perhaps the most interesting portion of Japanese law is that part of the civil code which deals with family relations. While the remaining portion of Japanese law has in great part been formulated in accordance with the ideas of modern Europe, this por tion of Japanese law has been in great part formulated in accordance with ancient Jap anese law. This being the case, it is inter esting to note the similarity between the Jap anese law of family relations and the Roman law touching the same subject. The learned lecturer tells us that "There is no other de partment of law which enters so closely into the heart and foundations of society as the law of 'family relations.' " This doubtless accounts for the fact that while Japan was ready to adopt the general body of the law of modern Europe she was not willing to revolutionize the indigenous law which cir cles around the hearth-stone. Society in Japan has gone through the stages of fam, .ily groups, village community and feudal sys tem, which latter system lasted- until the Rev olution of 1868. This is the order of pro gress which has been recognized elsewhere throughout the world, and, speaking in a general way, Japan has now brought her jurisprudence into line with the latest phase of modern European advancement. In one respect, however, there is still room for growth along the line recognized throughout
347
the world as the line of progress, and that is with respect to the law of family relations. Dr. Masujima tells us that it has been gener ally stated that in Japan the family is still the unit of society and not the individual, and he proceeds to argue that this is not strictly accurate, -because the law of Japan does, to a considerable extent, recognize the position of the individual, but he makes it clear that the saying, which he combats, has in it a con siderable deal of truth. To the April number of The American Law Register William W. Smithers contributes the second of a series, of articles on "Russian Civil Law," bringing the narrative down to the end of the sixteenth century. Of the im portant codification of Russian laws about 1050, the following interesting account is given : The Russkaia Pravda of Yaroslav is im portant as a-mirror of ancient legislation and customary law which had become well recog nized in principle at the time of its promul gation. It was primarily intended for a body of people known to have come from many countries, although most strongly impressed by Scandinavian and Slavonic ideas and cus toms. . . . The importance of the family above the in dividual is manifested in many provisions for punishing criminals, and the class distinc tions of the boyars and thanes, the men of the sword, merchants and free workers, and the slaves is clearly established. The relation of master and hired servant is recognized and the right of the latter to quit the employ ment at will on repayment of advanced wages is given. The familiar maxim of the English com mon law as to right of protection of one's private property is thus recognized: "Each citizen has the right to kill within his own property the robber whom he surprises therein at night." Damages are allowed for the destruction of cattle, boundary fences, trees, bee swarms, etc. The master is made responsible in dam ages for the torts of his slaves. A curious
