SIR,--I recently purchased _Dodger's Digest of Dustbin Law_, and
recommend it to the perusal of every householder. In the case of _The
Vestry of Shoreditch_ v. _Grimes_, Lord Justice SLUSH remarks--"The
Vestry complains that the Defendant's bin was improperly covered;
that, in fact, it was not under coverture. To this the Defendant
replies that his bin was void _ab initio_, as there was nothing in it.
Then the question arises whether the Defendant's Cook was justified
in tipping the Dustman into the empty bin, considering that the
Legislature has distinctly forbidden tips of all kinds to Dustmen. I
am of opinion that the Cook was the Defendant's agent, and that the
rule of _qui facit per alium facit per se_ applies here. The Cook's
proceeding was undoubtedly tortious; it was not a criminal action,
though it certainly cannot be called a civil one. I agree with
my brother CHIPPY that the _ratio decidendi_ must be, whether the
Dustman, in coming to clean out an empty dust-bin, had a _malus
animus_ or no. On all these points I hold that judgment must be
for the Vestry." Your readers will see the importance of such clear
_obiter dicta_.
Yours, AMATEUR LAWYER.
* * * * *
[Illustration: PROOF POSITIVE.
"I CAN'T THINK HOW THAT IMPRESSION GOT ABOUT, LADY GWENDOLINE. I SPEND
HALF MY TIME IN CONTRADICTING IT. OUR NEW MEMBER IS BY NO MEANS A
SMALL MAN. I'VE BEEN ON THE PLATFORM WITH HIM OFTEN, AND HE STANDS
FULLY AS TALL AS I DO!"]
* * * * *