at Greenwich, and previously at the then Union Hall Police-Court in London. He retired from this position in 1868. Mr. Traill married, in 1824, Caroline, youngest daughter of the late William Whateley, Esq., of Handsworth, Staffordshire, and has left issue.

VICE-CHANCELLOR SIR JOHN WICKENS, died on the 23rd October, at his residence, Chilgrove, near Chichester, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. He was second son of James Stephen Wickens, Esq., Solicitor, London, by Anne Goodenough, daughter of John Hayter, Esq., of Winterbourne Stoke, Wilts, the sister of Sir W. G. Hayter. He was born in 1815, and was educated at Eton, and Balliol College, Oxford. At Oxford he obtained, among other distinctions, the Newdigate Prize for English Verse, and took his Bachelor's degree in 1836, as a "double first class." It is said that he failed to obtain a Balliol Fellowship because his facetious propensities had shown themselves in practical jokes against the master and tutors of his College. In 1840 he was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn. His reputation as an equity draftsman was very great, and he had an accurate acquaintance with Chancery pleading. In 1868 he succeeded Lord Justice James as Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Wickens at the same time acted as the Attorney-General's "Devil" in Equity. In April 1871 the deceased Judge succeeded Sir John Stuart as Vice-Chancellor. Sir John Wickens, on the Judicial Bench, showed, in his short career, that he possessed the very highest qualities which can be looked for in an Equity Judge. "Sir John Wickens," says a contemporary," was one of those men whose elevation did not place a distance between himself and his contemporaries at the Bar. He was always easy and unaffected in his manners, both in and out of Court, and even since his elevation to the Bench the Vice-Chancellor walking away from his Court with his cigar in his lips was not an unfamiliar figure in the precincts of Lincoln's Inn." The late Vice-Chancellor Wickens married, in 1845, Harriet Frances, daughter of William Davey, Esq., of Cowley House, Gloucestershire, by whom he leaves a family.

JOHN BARRON, Esq., C.A., late Depute-Clerk of Teinds, died at 45 Queen Street, Edinburgh, November 1st.

JOHN BURNET, Esq., Writer in Glasgow, formerly ProcuratorFiscal for the City of Glasgow, and late Secretary to the Glasgow Waterworks Commissioners, died at Mileburn, Gourock, November 10th.

HECTOR MASON, Esq., late Assistant Clerk of Session, died at 21 Millerfield Place, November 13th.

JAMES COSSAR, Esq., S.S.C., died at Edinburgh, November 16th.

663

The Scottish Law Magazine and Sheriff Court Reporter.

SHERIFF COURT OF ABERDEENSHIRE.

Sheriff COMRIE THOMSON.

CULLEN v. G. AND W. DAVIDSON.-Nov. 1873.

Factory and Workshops Act-Employment of Children.-Messrs George and William Davidson, rope and twine manufacturers, St. Clement Street, Aberdeen, were charged with unlawfully employing nine children under the age of 13, (1) without having registered their names and the date of the first day of their employment, as required by section 9 of the "Factory Regulation Act, 1844;" (2) without having obtained the surgical certificates required by sec. 11 of the Factory Act, 1833," and sec. 29 of the Act of 1844; (3) without having obtained a certificate from a schoolmaster that such children had attended school during the foregone week, as required by secs. 38 and 39 of the Act of 1844; and (4) with unlawfully employing the said children for more than seven hours in contravention of sec. 30 of the said recited Act.

Mr. W. L. Reid appeared for the respondents, and stated that the premises occupied by them were within the description of those exempted by the “ Ropeworks Exemption Act, 1846," and hence pleaded that the respts. were not liable to the penalties under the Acts libelled on. The fact averred by the respts. was admitted by Mr. Cullen, and some discussion took place on the argument based upon it.

The Sheriff, after considering the point, said-I confess that I should be very glad to have had more time to consider the plea which has been stated, because it seems to me to raise a very nice question as to the construction of an Act of Parliament. But one is doomed in cases of this sort to decide these things as much as possible at the time, and the opinion at which I have arrived is that the Factory Acts do not extend to ropeworks in which no steam or water power is used; and my reason for taking this view is simply this. The contraventions charged are contraventions of an Act passed in 1844. In 1846 another Act was passed exempting ropeworks from the operation of the Act in 1844. In 1867 an Act was passed called "An Act for the Extension of the Factory Acts," which declared that in reading the Act of 1844 the word "factory" was to have certain meanings attached to it, and one of these meanings was that it was to include "any premises in, on, or within the precincts of which fifty or more persons are employed in any manufacturing process." The Act of 1844 was to stand as it was, only that gloss was put upon the word "factory" as often as it occurred in

it.

The Act of 1844, except in that respect and in some other matters which do not affect this question, stood to all intents and purposes as it was, and so did the Act of 1846. You read the word “factory" as often as it occurs in the Act of 1844 as extended and interpreted by the Act of 1867, but I see nothing in the Act of 1867 that in any way affects the exemption introduced by the Act of 1846. It is a well known canon of construction that one is not to assume that an Act of Parliament has been repealed. It has been admitted on all sides that this Act of 1846 is not repealed per expressum, and I see nothing to cause me to hold that it has been repealed virtually or by implication. I am fortified in that view by the circumstance that one of the most careful workmen in the manufacture of law books-Mr. Fraser, Sheriff of Renfrewshire-in his latest edition deals with this Exemption Act of 1846 as being still in force. Therefore, it being admitted that the facts are as stated by Mr. Reid, I must dismiss the complaint.

The S.-S. remarked that he hoped the case would be taken further, because this was an important question, and of wide application. He, however, had to dispose of it according to his own lights.

THAIN V. KING.-24th Oct. 1873.

Slander-Words not Actionable.-James Thain, ironmonger, residing in Queen Street, Aberdeen, brought an action against Mortimer James King, medical student, residing in the Northern Hotel, Aberdeen, for £200 of damages in consequence of the defender having on a certain occasion libelled, in Union Street of Aberdeen," slandered the pursuer by stating falsely, injuriously, and calumniously that the pursuer was a Scotch bugger," and used other opprobrious epithets towards him; and having also assaulted and knocked him down. Defr. at first, without admitting liability, tendered £5 in full of damages, with expenses. The record was thereafter closed, when defr. pleaded that the words libelled were not actionable, and in addition, denied the libel, explaining that in the course of a street brawl between defr. and pursuer, and their respective companions, the pursuer seized defr. by the collar of his coat, whereupon, in order to liberate himself, defr. struck out at pursuer with his fist and hit him a blow, which however was not a severe one.

The S.-S. pronounced the following interlocutor :

"Aberdeen, 24th October 1873.-Having considered the cause, Finds that no relevant ground for concluding for damages in respect of slander has been set forth in the summons: Therefore sustains the first plea stated for the defender: And with reference to that part of the summons which is founded upon alleged personal injuries, allows both parties a proof, and the pursuer a conjunct probation, &c. JOHN COMRIE THOMSON.

"Note. The S.-S. is of opinion that the words founded upon by the pursuer as slanderous are not actionable. They are disgusting in the highest degree, but they seem to the S.-S. to fall under the category of 'vulgar abuse,' and to have no distinct meaning of a slanderous sort. J. C. T."

The case was not appealed.

Act.-C. Duncan.-Alt.-G. D. Rutherford.