In his _abstracts of cases_, the author is, in the main, particularly successful. Not only does he give them with a clearness, (the result of brevity, effected by discarding non-essentials) which we would gladly see judges and reporters emulate,--but he sometimes gathers from them doctrines, which the reporter has overlooked, and which a cursory reader would therefore be little apt to discover. For example, in pp. 20, 21, he states these two points, as decided in the case of _Blow_ v. _Maynard_, 2 Leigh, 21: 1st, That a fraudulent donee of personalty is accountable for it and its increase, and also for hires, and profits, accruing since the donor's death, as executor _de son tort_; just as a rightful executor would be, who had taken possession at the donor's death: and 2d, That a _privy_ to the fraud, who shared with the donee the profits of the property fraudulently conveyed, is accountable jointly with the donee. Now the reporter in his marginal summary of the case, does not mention these as among the points decided; though in the decree of the court (2 Leigh, p. 67,) they manifestly appear. Again--in the case of _Tod_ v. _Baylor_, (as now reported in 4 Leigh, 498,) it is not said, at all, that _only two of the judges concurred_ in the third point there stated as adjudged. But our author tells us so, (p. 10,) and we are thus enabled to estimate the authority at its true value--as _persuasive_ only,--not _obligatory_, in other cases. The mechanical execution of the book does infinite credit to the printer. The typography is unsurpassed; and the paper is white, pure, and firm, so as to receive notes of the pen without blotting--a great merit in law books. If it were only to shew that we are free of our craft as critics, we must find some fault with this work: premising, that _merit_ is its _staple_; and that, if more of the criticism be occupied with its faults, it is chiefly because they are somewhat hard to detect, amidst the pile of excellences. The chaff, this time, is hidden by the wheat.