tain exceptional circumstances from con law of Scotland permits a married man to siderations of public policy. These are well gratify his taste for that species of cruelty, known as cases of privilege, in which the subject to these conditions, that it must be protection which the law gives to an indipracticed upon his own wife, and that he . vidual who is within the scope of these con must stop short of injuring her health of siderations consists in this—that he may mind or body or of rendering her existence with immunity commit an act which is a intolerable. How far he can carry his ex legal wrong and but for his privilege would periments without exceeding the limits so afford a good cause of action against him, prescribed, and thereby becoming guilty of all that is required in order to raise the legal sacvitia, must depend very much upon privilege and entitle him to protection being the circumstances of the case, and, in par that he shall act honestly in the discharge ticular, upon the victim's capacity of endurof some duty which the law recognizes and Lord Watson's homely appearance gave shall not be prompted by a desire to injure little indication of his powerful intellect. the person who is affected by his act. Ac cordingly, in a suit brought by that person, He looked more like a genial country squire; it is usual for htm to allege and necessary indeed, we have his own assurance that his" for him to prove an intent to injure in order ambition did not extend beyond a quiet to destroy the privilege of the defendant. country life. Otherwise indolent, his extra But none of these cases tend to establish ordinary assiduity in the discharge of his that an act which does not amount to a legal judicial functions is the more remarkable wrong, and therefore needs no protection, since it was prompted solely by sense of duty. can have privilege attached to it; and still 1 Lord Watson's ablest efforts are : English Appeals: Allen v. Flood (1898), A. C. I; less, that an act in itself lawful is converted v. Baker (1891), A. C. 325; Scholfield v Londesinto a legal wrong if it was done from a bad Smith borough (1896), A. C. 514; Johnson v. Lindsay (1891), A. C. 371; Nordenfelt v. Maxim -Nordenfelt (1894), A. motive." 514; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor (1892), A. C. To literary form and refinement of style C. 52; The Bernina, 13 A. C. I; Solomon v. Solomon Lord Watson appears to have been wholly (1897), A. C. 22; Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 A. C. 409; Bank of England v. Vagliano (1891), A. C. 107; Ooregum indifferent. Clear, direct and compact in Gold Mining Co. v. Roper (1892), A. C. 25; Tailby v. expression, his opinions are nevertheless not Official Receiver, 13 A. C. 523; W'akelin v. London and S. W. Ry. Co., 12 A. C. 41; London Joint Stock Bank without charm from their simplicityof diction v. Simmons; Bradford Corporation v. Tickles (1895), A. and the occasional use of the quaint legal I C. 595; Lyell v. Kennedy, 9 A. C. 89; Euraght v. Lord 7 A. C. 240. phraseology of his native land. Probably I Penzance, Privy Council Appeals : Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier the best expression of this is his interesting ( 1S95), A. C. 517; Abdul Messih v. Farra, 13 A. C. 431; Huntington v. Attrill (1993), A. C. 150; Gera v. Cianopinion in the matrimonial case of Mac tra, 12 A. C. 557; Haegard v. Pelicier Freres (1892), A. C. 61; Macdonald v. Whitfield, 8 A. C. 733. kenzie v. Mackenzie, (1895) A. C. 384. Scotch Appeals: Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1895). A. "There can be hardly a more odious form C. 384
- Collins v. Collins. 9 A. C. 205; Ewing v. Orrof cruelty," he says in one place, "than a Ewing, 10 A. C. 499; Clarke v. Carfin Coal Co. (18o1),
C. 412; Commissioners of Income Tax v. Pemsel deliberate attempt to wound the feelings of ' A. (1891), A. C. 531; Palmer v. Wicke (1804), A. C. 318: Caird v. Sieme, 12 A. C. 326; Rothes v. Kirkcaldy Water a mother through her affection for her in Commissioners, 7 A. C. 694; Harvey v. Farnie, fant child. It is nevertheless true that the 8Works A. C. 62.
