REVIEWS
| Published date | 01 April 1944 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1944.tb00972.x |
| Date | 01 April 1944 |
NOTES
OF
CASES
85
Under the so-called “Company Sur-tax Code” (sect.
21,
Finance Act,
1922,
sect.
14,
Finance Act,
1937,
and sect.
15,
Finance Act,
1939,
are the
more important sections), the Special Commissioners of Income Tax are
given power to apportion, according to their discretion, the income of
certain privately controlled companies among the members thereof, and
certain other persons, in such
a
way as to render the income
so
apportioned
chargeable to sur-tax upon the members, etc. The Court of Appeal held,
in
Fendoch Investment
Co.,
Ltd.,
v.
Inland Revenue,
[I9431
2
All
E.R.
413,
that the Special Commissioners were not restricted, in their apportion-
ments, only to those members of
a
company who were on
its
share register
nt the end
of the particular year of assessment
;
they could have regard to
persons who were members
of
the company
at
nnv
time
during
such year.
A.
T”kI\NSWORTH
REVIEWS
BRACTOMAN
PROBLEMS.
Being the ninth lecture
on
the David PVIiirray
Foundation in the University of Glasgow, prepared, but not
delivered, by
H.
KANTOROWICZ.
With
a
short memoir of the author
by
DORIS
M.
STENTON.
Glasgow
:
Jackson,
Son
&
Co.,
1941.
4s.
Bracton’s Roman learning (or his !ack of it) has been in controversy
for some generations, but this brilliant and fascinating brochure makes an
entirely new approach to an old but crucial problem. Kantorowicz shows
that much of the mishandling of Roman law is due to the corruption of
Bracton’s text. Obvious errors appear in
all
the
MSS.
;
and yet on anothei
page the same point will
be
rightly stated, again in all the
MSS.
It
is there-
fore the archetype which is
at
fault
;
phrases are misplaced, omitted, mis-
read. The author’s application of the techniques of textual criticism (in
which he has long been an expert) is
a
delight to watch. Readers with
a
taste for literary detection and for textual emendation will thoroughly
enjoy this display by
a
master. They will not find all the points equally
convincing, although some of them seem to us unassailable. The general
thesis which emerges is that the archetype from which all the
MSS.
derive
was prepared from Bracton’s drafts by someone who was quite beneath
so
difficult
a
task, and blundered badly. We have often felt that Bracton’s
scrupulous care in his
Note
Book
(which dealt with the law he administered
all
his life) -was not consistent with the reckless mishandling of the less
familiar Roman system which Maitland attributed to hini. The author’s
suggestion that it was the scribe’s and not Bracton’s nonsense which
confronts
us,
is very welcome.
The method has snares. There must be limits to conjecture. Nor will all
the author’s conjectures conimand assent (the suggestion on p.
42
that me
read
maritali
for
mortali
is obviously wrong, for Bracton was thinking of
such cases
as
Note
Book
1718).
There are two other important points. The
author suggests
1239
as the date; this seems to
us
quite impossible in view
of the physical structure of the
Note
Boolr
MS.
The othcr is an attack upon
Woodbine. which the author would certainly not have left in its present
fsrm
if
he had lived to consult an English friend.
It
seems to
us
that
Wootl-
bine does well to eschew emendations; we must know the manuscripts
before we emend them, and that is sufficient justification for postponing
much of the commentary until the manuscript situation has been eluci-
dated. This method will have the
additional
advantage
(of
nllowing
the
To continue reading
Request your trial