vice and for the master's benefit, though no express command or privity of the master be proved."

In giving judgment in the case of Lloyd, (supra), the foregoing rule, as laid down in the Barwick case, (supra), was considered, and particularly was emphasis and stress given the words "for the master's benefit": and Lord Justice Farwell concluded, that the Court for which he was speaking could not enunciate a different rule, and a number of authorities in which the same principle had been decided and adopted were cited, and he added that the liability of the principal did not extend far enough to include a case where the agent acted with his own benefit solely in view: and in such opinion by Willes, J., Lord Justice Kennedy concurred, but from it dissented Lord Justice Williams.

That a fraudulent act, committed by an agent for his own unlawful purpose, even if done within the ordinary scope of his authority, does not render the principal liable in any manner, seems to be a prevalent and every day notion, even in the legal profession; it was, indeed, strongly argued in the case of Lloyd, (supra), that in no case of wrongful conversion or fraudulent misrepresentation is a master apie for the act of his servant.

That such a false presumption exists commonly to-day is evidenced by several reported cases, particularly by Lord Justice Bowen in British Banking Co. v. Charmwood, (57 L. T. Rep. 833; 18 Q. B. 714); Ruben v. Great Fingall Co. (95 L. T. Rep. 214; 1906 A. C. 439).

But any and all dicta of such a character as above indieated were side-stepped and disregarded by the House of Lords in Lloyd's case, (supra), and, shooting holes in the doctrine that the fraudulent act of the agent must be to the personal advantage of the principal. Lord Loreburn said " Mr. Justice Willes cannot have meant that the principal is absolved whenever his agent intended to appropriate for himself the proceeds of his fraud." And he very aptly added, nearly every rogue intends to do that."

It will also be noticed that Lord Halsbury was equally emphatic in the view that he expressed, remarking that the words "and for the master's benefit" obviously meant that it was "something in the master's business."

In the very old case of Hern v. Nichols, (1 Salk. 289), Lord Hall laid down "that the merchant was answerable for the deceit of his factor, though not criminaliter but civiliter."

The fact that the doctrine that a principal does not benefit by or through the fraudulent act of his agent is immaterial, was clearly shewn by Lord Macnaghten in his usual exhaustive judgment.

In the case of the King v. Can. R. Co. in the Exchequer Court of Canada, decided Jan. 22nd, 1913, the case of Lloyd v. Grace, (supra), was referred to. The question there was as to liability of defendant for the acts of its agent in fraud of the government, in having misappropriated moneys provided by defendant for paying duties on imported goods. The Court, by Audette, J., says, speaking of the Lloyd case, (supra), "It is true he had not authorised the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he must be answerable for the manner in which the agent has conducted himself in doing the business, which it was the act of the principal in placing him in."

The Court also quotes the Lloyd case, (supra), as saying that the Barwick case (supra), had been misunderstood, and did not mean "must be for the master's benefit," and repudiated the dicta of Bowen, L.J., in Banking Co. v. Charmwood, 57 L. T. R. 833, and of Darvey, L.J., in Ruben v. Great Fingall, 1906 A. C. 439. A similarity was also shewn between the law of Quebec as contained in its civil code, and the rule laid down by the House of Lords, in the case of Lloyd (supra), which is expressly followed.

THE SCIENTIFIC POLICE.1

SALVATORE OTTOLENGHI,

Professor of Legal Medicine at the University of Rome and Director of the School of Scientific Police.

Every citizen who is interested in the progress of society. acknowledges that, in civilized countries, the police is entrusted with a noble task, which fact is reflected by the science whose aim it is to raise the efficiency of this powerful weapon of social defense. Physicians by whose teaching of hygiene society had been enabled to prevent physical evils to a large extent, felt very much flattered when, having taken up the study of police problems they were asked to assume certain responsibilities in questions of moral hygiene.

Since 1894, when I first tried to introduce a really scientific system into the police by following the inspirations of my master, Cesare Lombroso, I have demonstrated the function of criminal anthropology in such a system. The school of scientific police, founded through my initiative by the secretary of the interior, took its inspiration mainly from the principles of criminal anthropology.2

Since then the works on scientific police have been increasing rapidly; other schools have been established and new departments of police have been created. We must admit, however, that many either have not understood, or have not followed the scientific biological direction essential to a scientific police. Let us, above all, agree on the program and the function of a scientific police.

The technical function of judicial police is an important part of it. It requires the application of scientific methods of describing individuals, taking their photographs and finger prints, reproducing criminal local inquests, and for picking up the tracks of criminals. It comprises the Bertillon system, numerous chapters of legal medicine, and judicial photography. This technical side is only a part of the police

1 Translated by Dr. Victor von Borosini, Chicago. Republished here from the Journal of Cr. L. and Criminology.

2 S. Ottolenghi : L'insegnamento della Polizia scientifica. 1895 Sienna. La police scientifique en Italie. (Archive anthrop. Crimin., 1905). Prospetii sinottici di Polizia scientifica. Roma 1908, p. 250. Trattato di Polizia scientifica. 1 Vol. Identificazione figura. Milano Societa editrice libraria,

1910. p. 410.

function. Bertillon, whose system already existed in 1884, did not think then that he had created the scientific police.

I have always considered it my duty to speak of scientific police as Lombroso conceived it in opposition to the empirical system which is in vogue at present. I not only wanted to apply certain new methods of identification, but, for three reasons, I urged the adoption of the new system; (1) to introduce a scientific method, based on investigation, in all the departments of the police. Every preventive and repressive measure ought to be based upon an actual and profound knowledge of normal, and of criminal men especially. Each branch of the police administration should adopt the method, founded upon investigation, i.e., nothing else but the application of Galilei's experimental, objective and rational method, which made experimental science possible. By extending this method to the study of moral evils, modern psychology, psychiatry and anthropology were ereated. This method, if applied to the police, would serve as a safeguard against errors of any kind. It is the most reliable way to discover the truth. (2) To seek the support of biology, psychology and criminal anthropology for investigations; i.e., to reckon with natural laws when we investigate, cross-examine and report on facts. (3) To rest all police work on the thorough knowledge of man, especially of the criminal type, and to make use of the teachings of anthropology and psychology for the better prevention and suppression of crimes and for the discovery and more efficient supervision of criminals.

The knowledge of the nature of delinquent men will necessarily induce the police and society to adopt a nore humane method for fighting criminality. This can be done by employing the best methods recognized by modern pedagogy in the treatment of minors, those methods which have triumphed in the treatment of the insane (Pinel) and have proved a marked success in animal breeding and even the taming of wild beasts.

By studying the individual in his relations to environment, criminal anthropology has taught us that a great many have become criminals through the surroundings in which they were obliged to live. If these conditions are considered and criminals are treated kindly, they may lose their dangerous characteristics. We have learned, besides, that if we treat a criminal humanely and as a friend, he can be

better watched; his guilt, if he is guilty, can be more easily established, and his nature on the whole can be appreciated with greater precision. Criminal anthropology and sociology learned not from books, but from living beings, teach the official the rules to be observed for discovering the nature of the human mind, for appreciating the particular danger of a criminal to society, and for discovering the participants in the commission of criminal acts. Anthropology and psychology inform us about the nature of a criminal, enable his identification, and tell us how to treat him. The psychology of the delinquent gives the officer a cue to his character, which renders him competent to introduce radical changes while enforcing the laws. The present method irritates rather than tames the human animal by developing ideas of persecution, thus increasing in an incredible way the world's cruelty. The knowledge of normal and criminal psychology must convince responsible superior police officers that the whole force ought to be inspired by humanitarian sentiments, by moderation, and by a certain kindness even towards the worst specimens of society, in order to do really efficient work.

The scientific method, with its rules adopted from experimental science, which in turn is inspired by the modern knowledge of mental phenomena must-and this is really the new pedagogy of scientific police-teach the officers and the Judges how to observe, to reason, and to be absolutely impartial in investigations and reports. Besides it must teach the careful preparation of local inquests, investigation as to the accused's character, and the testimony of witnesses, all of which are useful means to discover the truth, rather than the opposite. The application of this method which means a real reform of the police, was first introduced in Italy, where Lombroso founded criminal anthropology, where the phenomena of the mind were examined by the most thorough methods, and where Galilei's method of investigation originated. The method can of course not be introduced by an order of a cabinet minister. Its effect is a remodelling of the whole department not only in culture, but also in education. Our school, the only one in the world at present, accomplishes this high purpose.

Which method must be follow to obtain such results? The anthropological method of investigation studies the VOL. XXXIII. C.L.T.- -46