Review: Laughter in Court
| Published date | 01 July 1935 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3500800318 |
| Date | 01 July 1935 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
REVIEWS
LAUGHTER
IN
COURT.
By
DUDLEY
BARKER.
(Methuen &Co.,
Ltd.)
5s.
READERS
of The Evening Standard will be familiar with
the"
Notebook round
the
Courts"
which Mr. Barker contributes to its columns, and will be glad
to possess in permanent form this little book of sketches of life in London
police courts.
It
is not all "
laughter":
there is a delicate pathos in many
of the characterizations.
This
is an attractive volume which will be
appreciated by many types of readers, and not least by those who are familiar
with police court routine. Mr. Barker writes with a keen insight of human
nature and a sympathy for all sorts and conditions.
BETTING
AND
LOTTERIES,
1935. By
ALBERT
LEICK.
(Butterworth
and Co.)
ISS.
net.
THE Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, is in itself a sufficient justification for
a book of this kind.
The
new Act has in many respects clarified the law,
but
many new points of doubt arise, and the subject generally is one which
requires careful exploration on the part of all those who have to administer
the law. Mr. Leick has arranged his references conveniently, and all the
information on the subject there is to be had will be found within these
covers.
THE
IDENTIFICATION
OF FIRE-ARMS. By
JACK
D.
GUNTHER
and
CHARLES
O.
GUNTHER.
(New York: John Wiley &Sons.
London:
Chapman and Hall.)
20S.
net.
IN England cases involving fire-arms and their identification are happily
rare, much rarer than they are in the United States, to which this book
chiefly refers. But when they do occur, such cases are of considerable
importance, and in many instances the evidence which may be derived from
the fire-arms and their appurtenances is of vital importance, since it may
form the only means of connecting the guilty party with the wounded or
dead person.
Hence it is necessary that there should be no uncertainty in the evidence
given in connexion with the productions, whether they be fire-arms or
cartridges or bullets.
It
should be given with such scientific impartiality
and proof that it might come either from the prosecution or from the defence,
being demonstrated in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of judge
or jury. There may be differences of opinion on either side,
but
there
should be none on the question of facts.
It
is for this reason apparently
377
To continue reading
Request your trial