Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/244

224 224 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Malice as an Ingredient of a Civil Cause of Action. By L. C. Kraulhoff. 1898. pp. 56. This paper, read by the author at the last annual meeting of the Amer- ican Bar Association, is another comment upon the case of Allen v. Flood, [1898] App. Cas. I. The author takes the middle ground in the discussion, adopting what he conceives to be the view of the House of Lords, that malice in actions for interference with business is immaterial, but that there is a certain " right to business " recognized by law which may be vio- lated by an act which is in itself unlawful. The writer does not seem to be troubled by the fact that this right must be a rather peculiar one when nothing can violate it except an act which violates some other right, and depends upon that other violation for its illegality. But perhaps the state of American decisions does not permit us to question the existence of that right. In dealing with the question of malice, Mr. Krauthofif agrees with the majority of the House of Lords, and concludes that most American cases agree with him. Without disputing his general conclusions at all, we cannot but feel that he does scant justice to the opposition, both in matter of reasoning and in regard to weight of authority. In Massachu- setts and New Jersey there is certainly a strong tendency against the English rule. Walker v. Croniii, 107 Mass. 555 ; Van Horn v. Van Horn, 52 N. J. L. 284. The addition, if any, which the writer really makes to the theoretical discussion of the subject is his suggestion that the element of conspiracy can make no difference in the law, but that unlawful intimidation is more likely to be present where there is con- spiracy ; an act which might have no effect if done by one person may well intimidate if done by a hundred persons conjointly. j. g. p. The War Revenue Law of 1898. Annotated by Edward L. Hey- decker and Fulton McMahon. Albany, N. Y. : Matthew Bender. 1898. pp. vii, 167, The War Revenue Law of 1898 Explained. By John M. Gould and Edward H. Savary. Boston : Little, Brown, & Company. 1898. pp. X, 190. These books are identical in object, and differ little in plan of execu- tion. Both print the Revenue Act in full and follow each section with notes. These notes point out what former acts are the basis of the sec- tions in question, then give decisions rendered on the interpretation of similar provisions both in the United States and England, and lastly, suggest what seems to be the more probable meaning of certain doubt- ful passages. The first-mentioned volume is considerably the fuller in its historical treatment of the sections, and gives more reference to Eng- lish decisions. The other, written two months later than the first, has the advantage of being able to quote many rulings by the commissioner re- garding this very law. It also has an appendix containing explanatory circulars issued by the Department of the Interior, and also forms for the papers which may be required under the act. A chapter of " Practical Suggestions " based on the actual workings of the law is added. Although the two books of necessity have much in common, they have been thought out on separate lines, and in each one there is much material which is not to be found in the other. For instance, each cites approxi-