Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T03:14:54.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Lawyer's ‘Alice’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Glanville L. Williams
Get access

Extract

The hall was full of little creatures of all sorts. There was a Mouse, a Duck, a Dodo, a Lory, an Eaglet, and a jet-black Rook wearing a clerical collar.

‘“I,” said the Rook,

“With my little book”’—

murmured Alice to herself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 1946 , pp. 171 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1934] 2 K. B. at p. 22.

2 The answer given to Alice's question by the Caterpillar is analogous to the decision in Phillips v. Brooks [1919] 2 K. B. 243Google Scholar, in that it regards the King's offer as mode to the person whose bodily attributes were in tho King's mind. The Bluebottle's answer rejects this test and holds that the offer is not made to one who does not possess the attributes regarded by the King as material. It is submitted that the Bluebottle's view is the better one.

3 In support of the Mad Hatter, it may be pointed out that the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, s. 20 (5), forbids the use of the term ‘lunatic,’ and it is a long-settled rule of the common law that an indictment lies against a person for doing what is prohibited by statute, if no particular mode of punishment be directed (Hollingworth's Case (1620) Cro. Jac. 577.)Google Scholar

4 For this peculiar rule and its still more peculiar reason, see 17 Halsbury (Hailsham, ed.) 582–583.Google Scholar