hich a charter or license might be had upon
proper application and for a purpose not inimical to the welfare of the community. If they have, the next inquiry should be whether they have actually begun business and acted through the agencies common to associates of their type. If so, limited liabi lity and such other privileges as will be li censed upon application should be recog nized as pertaining to the associates. Their status should be assimilated to that of a man and a woman who, without license or cere mony, cohabit and announce themselves as husband and wife. Their children are legi timate and the consequences of marriage follow in respect to their property rights. To regulate marriage, however, is an im portant duty of the State, and to punish un licensed marriage is an unquestionably sound policy. So likewise is it of the utmost importance that the State should regulate association and incorporation. The forma tion of statutory groups otherwise than in accordance with statutory provisions should be made a penal offence and the penalty should be strictly imposed. CONCERNING "The Decadence of the Crimi nal Jury, The Australian Law Times says: If a jury should, however, after a careful deliberation of the evidence utterly fail to agree, is it to the best interests of justice that it should be further pressed? The jury, as a rule, resents dictation at the hands of the judge as to the verdict at which it should arrive. The invariable experience in such cases is that it is not the stubborn and un reasonable man who gives way. Where the jury ultimately comes to an agreement, it is usually because the weak-minded man has been overborne. By sheer weariness he is often led to lose confidence in his opinion properly formed, and induced to give the prisoner the benefit of a doubt he may not have previously felt. Disagreement certainly involves the ex penses attendant upon a further trial, with a preliminary presumption in favor of the pris oner from the very fact of the previous disa
greement. There is no doubt that it might very rapidly become a crying evil, that would call for some amendment of the system. In Scotland a majority verdict is taken in crimi nal as well as civil trials; but English senti ment has always been against such a course. It will, therefore, require an overwhelming case to be made out against the principle of the unanimous verdict before any alteration in this direction would be possible, even if desirable. On the whole, we are inclined to think that the advantages of the present system continue to outweigh the disadvan tages. It may be by accident, or by miracle, but it still works reasonably well. IF A's tree overhangs B's land and causes damage, can В obtain an injunction to re strain A from allowing this state of things to continue (asks The Law Journal, London), or is B's only remedy to cut down the over hanging branches of the tree? In other words, must В incur the trouble and expense of cutting them down, or can he compel A to do so himself? This is the question which the Divisional Court had to determine in Smith г:. Giddy, and there is no previous case in which the exact point had to be deter mined. It was established by Crowhurst r. The Amersham Burial Board, 48 Law J. Rep. Exch. 109; L. R. 4 Exch. Div. 5, that where the owner of land allows a poisonous tree to project over an adjacent field, and cattle grazing there eat of the tree and die. the owner is liable : and the court thought, though the question of an injunction did not arise, that the burden of trimming was an opera tion which ought not to be cast on the adja cent owner. It seems to follow, logically, from this decision, that where an overhang ing tree is causing damage, an injunction ought in a proper case to be granted to pre vent a continuation of the damage. Accord ingly the Divisional Court, with some reluc tance, held that the plaintiff was entitled to the order for which he asked. Apparently it is the damage done by an overhanging tree, not the encroachment on the neighbor's
