THE NEW PUBLICATIONS. The Question of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. By Coleman Phillipson, Esq., M.A., LL.D.. Litt. D., and Noel Buxton, Esq., M A., M.P. London: Stevens & Haynes, 1917. Price, 13/6. HE title of this work would be sufficient to make it interesting to Australians, whose thoughts will always linger round the doings of their beloved Anzaes. But the work has a wider interest, and will be found to be one of the most thoughtful and illuminating of the books connected with subjects arising out of the war. Its aim is to set forth the rise, development, and vicissitudes of the problem of the Straits; to analyse it into its constituent elements; to show the efforts that have been made in the past to solve it; to expound and critically examine from the point of view of international law the regimes that have been established by conventions; and finally to suggest what appears to the authors to be, in the present state of affairs, the most desirable solution. In the treatment of these headings the authors have brought to bear a wide knowledge of international law and the history of the Straits and surrounding territories. And in following them in their lucid and convincing progress to the conclusion arrived at, a great intellectual treat is afforded. Especially to members of the legal profession can this work be recommended, and its reasonable price brings it within easy reach. Jurisprudence. By John Salmond, Esq., Solicitor-General for New Zealand. London: Stevens & Haynes. Price, 17/ THIS is the fifth edition of Mr. Salmond's well-known work, and is substantially a reprint of the fourth edition, published in 1913. A reperusal confirms us in the opinion that it is indispensable for students desirous of laying a scientific foundation for their legal education, and most useful for those whose academic studies lie behind them. Reflections on the arguments used against the conscription proposals now before the Commonwealth convince us also that Mr. Salmond's chapter on the statute should be made a compulsory subject for every scholar in our schools. The Principles of Rescission of Contracts. By C. B. Morison, Esq., K.C., New Zealand. London: Stevens & Haynes. Price, 31/ R. MORISON uses the term "rescission" in a much wider sense MR. than we are accustomed to use it in this State, and is careful to point out the different senses in which the term is used. The object is to elucidate from the decided cases a definite and satisfactory set of principles to guide one in advising on breaches of contract. Mr. Morison has bravely faced the well-known difficulties arising from conflicts of authority on this topic, and in subjecting them to examination, has produced a work of great usefulness to the practising lawyers. Mr. Morison has confined himself in his examination of his subject to the cases decided in England. We would suggest that in a new edition much help and further usefulness would be obtained by an inclusion of the relevant cases decided in his own Dominion as well as those decided in the High Court of Australia and the different State Courts. We might mention, for instance, the examination of Kennedy v. The Panama dc., Mail Co. by Griffiths C.J. in Hynes v. Byrne & Others, 9 Q.L.J. 154. 1917. DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND. [IN THE FULL COURT.] R. v. THE CENTRAL CANE PRICES BOARD AND OTHERS, Central Sugar Cane Prices Board-Jurisdiction-Majority- Prerogative writs will lie to the Central Cane Prices Board. When a Local Cane Prices Board is constituted, it continues in existence, although its personnel may be changed, until the Order-in-Council constituting it is rescinded or amended. The Central Cane Prices Board having refused to hear evidence on the cost of production of cane, on the assumption that it was not a factor which they were bound to take into consideration, mandamus was issued compelling the Board to enter adjournments and to hear according to law. The Central Board, under the Registration of Sugar Cane Prices Act of 1915, in fixing the price of cane, may make an award for the whole of a sugar season, and such an award may be given retrospective effect to the commencement of the season. ORDERS NISI FOR MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI. Acting under the powers of The Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act of 1915, the Governor-in-Council created a Local Board for the Victoria Mill, for the Goondi Mill, for the Macknade Mill, and for the Hambleton Mill, and assigned to each mill lands in the vicinity thereof. A chairman was appointed for each Local Board, A 1916. October 11, 12, 13, 16, 27. Cooper C.J. Shand J. Lukin J. 1 F.C. R. v. THE CENTRAL CANE Ex parte THE REFINING and representatives of canegrowers and millowners were appointed to each of the Local Boards. The validity of the creation of each of these Boards and of the appointments thereto were declared and confirmed by a special Act of Parliament (The Local Sugar Cane Prices Boards Confirmation Act of 1915). In the year 1916, no Order-in-Council was issued constituting Local Boards for that year for any of the abovenamed mills, or assigning the lands to any of them, on the assumption that such action was unnecessary. Elections were held, and the representatives of canegrowers and millowners were elected or nominated to the Local Boards for each of those mills. The nominations of millowners' representatives was in each case made by the prosecutors, the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd., who owned the four abovenamed mills; but in each case the nominations were made under protest, as the prosecutors contended that, under the Act, an Order-in-Council must be made in each year for the purpose of constituting any Local Board. The four Local Boards, constituted of the Chairman appointed in 1915 and of the representatives of canegrowers and millowners elected or nominated in 1916 and appointed as members of the Boards by Order-in-Council, met for the purposes of discharging the duties imposed by The Sugar Cane Prices Boards Act of 1915 for the sugar season of the year 1916. In the case of the Victoria Local Board and the Macknade Local Board and the Hambleton Local Board, these Boards delegated their powers of making an award for the year 1916 to the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, which will be referred to as the Central Board. In the case of the Goondi Local Board an award was made, and the prosecutors appealed therefrom to the Central Board. The Central Board, in its delegated or appellate jurisdiction, made awards in respect of each of the four mills mentioned and the sugar lands assigned thereto. The prosecutors challenged the validity of the awards in two ways: 1. By these proceedings, being applications for writs of prohibition, or, alternatively, of mandamus, or, alternatively, of certiorari, to the Central Board. 2. By actions brought in the Supreme Court against the Attorney-General and a representative of the canegrowers claiming a declaration that the proceedings of the Central Board were illegal, |