In other branches of the law the vast accumulation of new material has added to the Editor's difficulties. To deal adequately with the manifold phases due to the War of 1914 within reasonable limits has proved no easy task. If I have failed to maintain the high standard of thoroughness, efficiency, and sound judgment set by Pitt Cobbett, it is not for want of endeavour. To have brought this volume up to date might have proved even for Pitt Cobbett a severe test. In two or three instances only have I felt constrained to differ from Pitt Cobbett, but in view of recent developments and experience he would, I venture to think, have come to very similar conclusions. In several instances I have substituted more recent cases for those appearing in the last edition-e.g., Schaffenius v. Goldberg for Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne and The Zamora for The Fox. For the additional "leading cases and the notes thereon I am, of course, wholly responsible. The Appendices have been wholly omitted, partly because the documents are now easily accessible, and partly to gain space for the text. Even so the volume has increased by 143 pages. There is much I would gladly have added. Nevertheless, I am not conscious of any serious omissions. 2 KING'S BENCH WALK, INNER TEMPLE, LONDON. HUGH H. L. BELLOT. (V) TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE (i) THE QUESTION OF PRIOR NOTICE OR DECLARATION. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN, 1904 RIO TINTO CO., LTD. v. BIEBER & CO. RIO TINTO CO., LTD. v. DYNAMIT ACTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (ii) SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS: TRADING WITH THE ENEMY. |