Page:An introduction to Roman-Dutch law.djvu/61

 Rh At the Cape the General Law Amendment Act No. 8 of 1879, introduced the English law: (s. 1) in all questions relating to shipping; and (s. 2) in all questions of fire, life, and marine insurance, stoppage in transitu, and bills of lading. But (s. 3) English statutes passed subsequently to the date of the Act do not apply.

It would occupy too much space to speak of the numerous Colonial Statutes which follow more or less closely the language of English Acts of Parliament and through this channel admit into their own system the rules and principles of the law of England. As examples may be cited the Ceylon Sale of Goods Ordinance No. 11 of 1896, and the British Guiana Sale of Goods Ordinance No. 26 of 1913. The numerous changes produced by the statutory abolition of institutions of the Roman-Dutch common law will be illustrated in the course of this book.

We have not space to speak of the modification of the Roman-Dutch common law in the several Colonies by the jurisprudence whether of the Colonial Courts or of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Fuller information on these matters must be sought elsewhere. It is enough to have warned the student that much of the learning of the old books is obsolete or superseded. To the extent of the topics included in this book, the points of contact between the Roman-Dutch and English systems will, it is hoped, be sufficiently indicated in the following pages.

Lastly, much of the English law has found its way in by a process of silent and often unnoticed acceptance. It would be easy to accumulate instances in every branch of the law. But the student may better be left to draw his own conclusions from the pages of the law reports and, in course of time, from the practice of his profession.

In conclusion, a few words will be permitted with regard to the present condition and future prospects of the Roman-Dutch system within the British Empire. In South Africa, in Ceylon, and in British Guiana its fortunes have been widely different. Writing some years ago in the Journal of Comparative Legislation, I said: