716 / 736
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