Correspondence
| Date | 01 January 1968 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1968.tb01177.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1968 |
118
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Vtji..
31
sections on registered conveyancing in Cheshire
or
in
Megarry
aid
Wade.
To
point the rontrst, there is in
Hollaqid
am!
Leu&
an Appendix describing
ninety common land registry forms, but the Table of Cases refers to only
sixteen cases, omitting any reference for example to
&-idge8
v.
Meer
[I9571
Ch.
476
or
Re
Hoyle’s
Claim
[I9611
1
W.L.R.
8B9.
The “cavalier brevity”
with which the authors confess to having treated certain topics of the sub-
btantive land law might, too, provide
a
handicap for many law students.
As
an advocate of the beneficial effect of title by adverse possession,
your
reviewer
would take issue with. Messrs. Holland and Lewis on their sentence “the
theft of land in this country has merited individual treatment by parliament
in
the form of the Limitation Act,
1939.”
Surely, deliberate “theft”
of
land
is not the cornnionest kind of adverse possession? Possession taken by
mistake, eg., as to the loration of
a
boundary, is probably more common.
I
would recommend
a
law student to read the introductory chapter to
this bonk, for
it
is
well written nnd readable but would warn him that he
iniyht find the remainder of the
book
more valuable to him when he becomes
a practitioner, to be used as
a
tool of his trade, than
as
a
first insight into
the place of registered conveyancing in the English land law.
MICHAEL
J.
GOODMAN.
COltHESYONDENCE
THE
EDITOR,
The
Modern
Law Review,.
Dear
Sir,
The attention
of
the judges
of
Rhodesia has been direrted to an article
by
Mrs.
Claire Palley appearing in Volume
80,
No.
8,
May
1967,
of your
journal,
and entitled “The Judicial I’rocess:
U.D.I.
and the Southern Rhodesian
Judiciary.”
I
have been asked to draw your attention to certain features of
this article. There are factual inaccuracies in that portion of the article which
deals with the individual judgcs-inaccuracies which could hardly have
occurred if any serious attempt had been made to check their correctness.
I
do not proposc to itemise all the innccuracies but there are two to which
I
feel coinpelled
to
draw your attention.
At pages
26667,
in referring to the Chief Justice, the writer states
:
“In
1960
he negotiated with the British Govcrnmcnt for closure of
voters’
rolls
against further African enrolment, to be compensated by
an increase in the size of the 1,ejqislative Assembly to forty, including
two Europeans specially elected to represent Africans, but eventually
reached
a
compromise whereby the property and wage qualifications for
the franchise would instead be raised.”
There is no truth in this statement nor any foundation for it. The Chief
Justice was elevated to tho Bench in July
1960,
and the Bill referred to was
lint introduced until the beginning of
1961.
At page
271,
the writer states
:
“The judges’ wish to take
up
an interniedinte position
\\‘as
manifested
when they informed the Speaker of the Rhodesian ‘Parliament’ and
Mr.
Smith that because litigation involving the standing of the
‘
Govern-
ment
’
and possibly
of
‘
Parliament
’
itself was pending they considered it
To continue reading
Request your trial