An attempt to catalogue the appearances of these famous spoofs of British legal procedure, as collected in books by A.P. Herbert himself (later Sir Alan Herbert). Most, though not all, were first published in Punch magazine. "The first Case – I think it was The Reasonable Man – Fardell v. Potts – appeared in Punch in 1924," Herbert wrote in A.P.H: His Life and Times (1970). Note that several cases from the first three collections were retitled as well as revised for the omnibus volume Uncommon Law. – David Langford
Title List
Misleading Cases collections - Misleading Cases in the Common Law (London: Methuen, 1927) [MC]
- More Misleading Cases in the Common Law (London: Methuen, 1930) [MMC]
- Still More Misleading Cases (Methuen, 1933) [SMMC]
- Uncommon Law: Being sixty-six Misleading Cases revised and collected in one volume (London: Methuen, 1935; with new Herbert introduction, London: Methuen, 1969) [UL]
- Codd's Last Case and Other Misleading Cases (London: Methuen, 1952) [CLC]
- Bardot M.P.? and other Modern Misleading Cases (London: Methuen, 1964) [BMP]
- Wigs at Work (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1966) [WW]
- More Uncommon Law: Being More Misleading Cases combining Bardot M.P.? and Codd's Last Case (London: Methuen, 1982) [MUL]
Other Herbert collections including Misleading Cases - General Cargo (London: Methuen, 1939) [GC]
- Look Back and Laugh (London: Methuen, 1960) [LBL]
Numbers and Notes
Title
Year
New Cases
Reprints
Total
Never Reprinted
Misleading Cases
1927 21
21 4 More Misleading Cases
1930 23
23 2 Still More Misleading Cases
1933 22
22 3 Uncommon Law
1935 9 57 66 5 General Cargo
1939 4
4 3 Codd's Last Case
1952 23 *1 24
Look Back and Laugh
1960 1 3 4
Bardot M.P.?
1964 23 **1 24
Wigs at Work
1966 2 32 34 2 More Uncommon Law
1982
48 48
3
3 Totals
131
22 * from General Cargo
** from Look Back and Laugh"Reprints" against book titles in the above table refers to Cases taken from previous A.P. Herbert collections, not to the original magazine/newspaper appearances. In the introduction to WW, Herbert reckoned that he had written some 150 Misleading Cases in all (and at least one more followed – see below). This implies that about twenty have never been collected in book form. It may be worth scouring old issues of Punch and the once regular anthology volume Pick of Punch for more. For example, Pick of Punch 1962 (London: Arthur Barker, 1962) ed. Bernard Hollowood includes Regina v. Strool – see Bardot M.P.? below. See also the final list on this page, Known Uncollected Cases.
Not every case appeared in Punch. A prefatory note in MC states: "These cases (with one exception) were recorded in the legal columns of Punch ..." – case and periodical both unspecified. The corresponding note in MMC records two exceptions, Lavender v. Ladle in the Week-end Review and In re John Walker, periodical unspecified; SMMC has one exception, "Not a Crime", periodical unspecified. The CLC note claims one exception, unspecified, and BMP says only that "Most of the cases were originallly reported in Punch." Herbert's new introduction to the 1969 edition of UL mentions a 1967 case which Punch refused "because they had recently made a resolution to have no more jokes about mini-skirts": instead it was printed in the Evening Standard, and reported as straight news in America, France and Italy.
In GC and WW the case details (Rex v. Haddock, etc) appear after the descriptive title rather than before, but it seems more sensible to follow a consistent style throughout. Original publication dates of cases appear in the collections CLC, LBL (once) and WW only – hence the many undated cases below. My thanks to Kim Huett for tracing the original Punch publication dates of four cases collected in MC, and reporting the magazine's numbering of these cases: XII Legacy To the Liberal Party in Volume CLXXII #4470, 9 March 1927; XVII Rex v. The Licensing Justices of Muddletown in Volume CLXXII #4484, 15 June 1927; XVIII Is Marriage Lawful? in Volume CLXXIII #4488, 13 July 1927; and XXI Is a Golfer a Gentleman? in Volume CLXXIII #4492, 10 August 1927.
Contents Lists
Misleading Cases in the Common Law (Methuen, 1927) - Introduction by Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England
- Rex v. Garvin, Riddell, Thomas and Others: Pleasant Sunday Mornings [in UL as The Sabbath-Breakers]
- Fardell v. Potts: The Reasonable Man – Punch, 9 July 1924
- Rex v. Haddock: Is a Golfer a Gentleman? – Punch, 10 August 1927
- Tinrib, Rumble and Others v. the King and Queen: Fish Royal – 1 October 1924
- Rex v. Haddock: Is It a Free Country?
- Rex v. The Licensing Justices of Muddletown: "The Red Cow" – Punch, 15 June 1927
- Rex v. Lord Oodle: False Pretences [omitted from UL]
- Pratt v. Pratt – Mugg Intercepting: A Swan Song
- Trott v. Tulip: Is "Highbrow" Libellous?
- Rex v. Haddock: Is Magna Carta Law? – 16 February 1927
- In the Coroner's Court: Are Dogs Political Animals? [omitted from UL]
- In re Macalister: Legacy to the Liberal Party [in UL as Which is the Liberal Party?] – Punch, 9 March 1927
- Suet v. Haddock: Status of Authors
- Rex v. Haddock: Can a Worm Turn? [omitted from UL] – Punch, 27 July 1927, as A Worm Turns
- Chicken v. Ham: The Lawyer's Dream
- Rex v. The Commissioner of Police and Others: Are Constables Quite Nice? [in UL as Exploits of Boot]
- Bishop of Bowl and Others v. Haddock: A Cross Action
- Rex v. Figg, Figg and Crole: Romance [omitted from UL]
- Engheim, Muckovitch, Kettelburg, Weinbaum and Oski v. The King: Free Speech [in UL as Free Speech – Why?] – Punch, 20 July 1927
- Marrowfat v. Marrowfat: Is Marriage Lawful? – Punch, 13 July 1927
- Carrot & Co. v. The Guano Association: The Expert Witness
- Index
More Misleading Cases in the Common Law (Methuen, 1930) - Lavender v. Ladle: What is an Actress? – Week-end Review
- Haddock v. The King and Others: Back to the Constitution [in UL as The Let and Hindrance]
- Haddock v. Thwale: What is a Motor-Car?
- Rex v. Bloggs: What is Education?
- Rex v. "The Colonel" and Others: The Fortune-Tellers – Punch, 21 May 1930
- Tyke v. Tyke: The Magic Hour
- Sparrow v. Pipp: Rebellion in the Lords [in UL as The Lords Rebel]
- Rex v. Puddle: Blackmail – Punch, 2 April 1930
- Rex v. Headmaster of Eton: What are the Classics? – Punch, 8 January 1930 [in UL as Lord Campbell's Act; in WW as Is Homer Obscene?]
- Cowfat v. Wheedle: What is a Snail? – Punch, 28 May 1930 [in UL as What are Snails?]
- Rex v. Baldwin and Others: The Sailor's Wife [in UL as The Ward-Room's Wife]
- In re John Walker: What is Prohibition? [in UL as Prohibition and Barbarism]
- Huxley and Others v. Phipps, Potts, Slammer & Co.: Sad Case of Mr Justice Wool [omitted from UL]
- Rex v. Skelton and Dew: What are Stockbrokers?
- Rex v. Leather: Is Fox-Hunting Fun?
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: What is a Cheque? [in UL as The Negotiable Cow]
- Rex v. Low: What are Politicians?
- Rex v. Smith, Brown, Jones, Robinson, and Others: Sauce for the Gander [omitted from UL]
- U.D.C. of Burbleton v. Haddock: The Freedom of the Shores
- Bacon v. Egg: The Law of Criticism
- Haddock and Others v. Mr. Justice Foot: What is a Jury?
- Haddock and Others v. Board of Inland Revenue: Wear and Tear – Punch, 30 July 1930
- Rumpelheimer v. Haddock: Port to Port – Punch, 2 July 1930
Still More Misleading Cases (Methuen, 1933) - Dedication to the Right Honourable Viscount Buckmaster, P.C.
- Introduction by Viscount Buckmaster, G.C.V.O., LL.D., P.C., formerly Lord Chancellor
- Rex v. Cochran: The Education Tax
- Cowan's Case: The Speaker of the House of Commons v. The Metropolitan Magistrate for Westminster: Sauce for the Goose [omitted from UL. The point of law, concerning the legality of drinking outside permitted hours on the privileged premises of the House of Commons, is very differently treated in UL as Rex v. Haddock: Crime in the Commons. Herbert's real-life test of the law had altered the position.]
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: Why is the House of Lords? – Punch, 9 August 1933
- Tristram v. the Moon Life Assurance Company: Why is the Coroner? – Punch, 31 May 1933
- Haddock v. Mogul Hotels, Ltd: The Law of Banquets [in UL as The Last Glass]
- Rex v. George, MacDonald, Maxton, and Others: Corrupt Practices
- Willow v. Capital Pictures Corporation: What is a Judge?
- Rex v. Boot, Mallock, and Tate: Triumph of Boot [omitted from UL; similar to Are Constables Quite Nice? aka Exploits of Boot]
- Rex v. Jackson: Triumph of Rutt [in UL as Are Suicides Insane?]
- Bold v. the Attorney-General: What is the Crown?
- Tripp v. The Milko Corporation, Ltd.: The Echoing Horn
- Haddock v. Jones: Triumph of Haddock [in UL as Law of Libel Reformed]
- Rex v. the Minister for Drains: The Man Tax [in UL as The Employment Tax]
- Dahlia, Ltd., v. Yvonne: Act of God
- Aley v. Fish: Justice for Men
- Macintosh and Others v. Haddock, Haddock, Haddock, Haddock, and Haddock, Ltd. (British Masterpieces, Ltd., intervening): Incorporation of Haddock
- The Postmaster-General v. Slot: Check to the Crown [in UL as The Bookmaker's Telephone]
- Rex v. Haddock: The Human Hen
- British Phosphates and Beef-Extract, Ltd. v. The United Alkali and Guano Simplex Association: Why is a Jury? – Punch, 5 April 1933
- Adam, M.R., v. Adam, C.J., and Tott: "Not a Crime" [in UL as Pale, M.R., v. Pale, H.J., and Hume: "Not a Crime"]
- In re Macdonald: Bathbourne Clinic v. Bathbourne Hospital: Why is the Woolsack? [in UL as Enter the Lady Chancellor]
- Haddock's Case [omitted from UL; follow-up to Cowan's Case above]
Uncommon Law: Being sixty-six Misleading Cases revised and collected in one volume (Methuen, 1935) - Introduction (APH)
- Dedication [from SMMC] to the Right Honourable Viscount Buckmaster, P.C.
- Introduction [from SMMC] by Viscount Buckmaster, G.C.V.O., LL.D., P.C., formerly Lord Chancellor
- Fardell v. Potts: The Reasonable Man – Punch, 9 July 1924 [from MC]
- Tinrib, Rumble and Others v. the King and Queen: Fish Royal – 1 October 1924 [from MC]
- Rex v. Garvin, Riddell, Thomas and Others: The Sabbath-Breakers [from MC]
- Rex v. Haddock: Is a Golfer a Gentleman? [from MC]
- Rex v. Haddock: Is It a Free Country? [from MC]
- Rex v. The Licensing Justices of Muddletown: "The Red Cow" [from MC]
- Pratt, G.K., v. Pratt, P., and Mugg: A Swan Song [from MC]
- Trott v. Tulip: Is "Highbrow" Libellous? [from MC]
- Rex v. Haddock: Is Magna Carta Law? – 16 February 1927 [from MC]
- In re Macalister: Which is the Liberal Party? [from MC]
- Suet v. Haddock: Status of Authors [from MC]
- Chicken v. Ham: The Lawyer's Dream [from MC]
- Rex v. The Commissioner of Police and Others: Exploits of Boot [from MC]
- Bishop of Bowl and Others v. Haddock: A Cross Action [from MC]
- Engheim, Muckovitch, Kettelburg, Weinbaum and Oski v. The King: Free Speech – Why? [from MC]
- Marrowfat v. Marrowfat: Is Marriage Lawful? [from MC]
- Carrot & Co. v. The Guano Association: The Expert Witness [from MC]
- Haddock v. the King and Others: The Let and Hindrance [from MMC]
- Lavender v. Ladle: What is an Actress? [from MMC]
- Haddock v. Thwale: What is a Motor-Car? [from MMC]
- Rex v. Bloggs: What is Education? [from MMC]
- Rex v. "The Colonel" and Others: The Fortune-Tellers – Punch, 21 May 1930 [from MMC]
- Tyke v. Tyke: The Magic Hour [from MMC]
- Sparrow v. Pipp: The Lords Rebel [from MMC]
- Rex v. Puddle: Blackmail – Punch, 2 April 1930 [from MMC]
- Rex v. Headmaster of Eton: Lord Campbell's Act – Punch, 8 January 1930 [from MMC]
- Cowfat v. Wheedle: What are Snails? – Punch, 28 May 1930 [from MMC]
- Rex v. Baldwin, Churchill, Bridgeman, and Others: The Ward-Room's Wife [from MMC]
- In re John Walker: Prohibition and Barbarism [from MMC]
- Rex v. Skelton and Dew: What are Stockbrokers? [from MMC]
- Rex v. Leather: Is Fox-Hunting Fun? [from MMC]
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: The Negotiable Cow [from MMC]
- Rex v. Low: What are Politicians? [from MMC]
- U.D.C. of Burbleton v. Haddock: The Freedom of the Shores [from MMC]
- Bacon v. Egg: The Law of Criticism [from MMC]
- Haddock and Others v. Board of Inland Revenue: Wear and Tear – Punch, 30 July 1930 [from MMC]
- Rumpelheimer v. Haddock: Port to Port – Punch, 2 July 1930 [from MMC]
- Rex v. Cochran: The Education Tax [from SMMC]
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: Why is the House of Lords? – 9 August 1933 [from SMMC]
- Tristram v. the Moon Life Assurance Company: Why is the Coroner? – 31 May 1933 [from SMMC]
- Haddock v. Mogul Hotels, Ltd: The Last Glass [from SMMC]
- Rex v. George, MacDonald, Maxton, and Others: Corrupt Practices [from SMMC]
- Willow v. Capital Pictures Corporation: What is a Judge? [from SMMC]
- Rex v. Jackson: Are Suicides Insane? [from SMMC]
- Bold v. the Attorney-General: What is the Crown? [from SMMC]
- Tripp v. The Milko Corporation, Ltd.: The Echoing Horn [from SMMC]
- Haddock v. Jones: Law of Libel Reformed [from SMMC]
- Rex v. the Minister for Drains: The Employment Tax [from SMMC]
- Dahlia, Ltd., v. Yvonne: Act of God [from SMMC]
- Aley v. Fish: Justice for Men [from SMMC]
- Macintosh and Others v. Haddock, Haddock, Haddock, Haddock, and Haddock, Ltd. (British Masterpieces, Ltd., intervening): Incorporation of Haddock [from SMMC]
- The Postmaster-General v. Slot: The Bookmaker's Telephone [from SMMC]
- Rex v. Haddock: The Human Hen [from SMMC]
- British Phosphates and Beef-Extract, Ltd. v. The United Alkali and Guano Simplex Association: Why is a Jury? – 5 April 1933 [from SMMC]
- In re Macdonald – Bathbourne Clinic v. Bathbourne Hospital: Enter the Lady Chancellor [from SMMC]
- Rex v. Venables and Others: The Dead Pronunciation – 31 January 1934 [new in UL]
- Fowl v. Myer: The Doctrine of Enticement [new in UL]
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: The Judges' Reply
- Pipp, M.L., v. Pipp, K., and Forrest: The Decree Nisi – 2 August 1933 [new in UL]
- Rex v. Smith: Felony and Misdemeanour – 11 October 1933 [new in UL]
- Rex v. Bitter: The Agent Provocateur [new in UL]
- Rex v. Pratt and Merry: The Tax on Virtue – 1 November 1933 [new in UL]
- Rex v. Bitter: What is Publishing? [new in UL]
- H.M. Customs and Excise v. Bathbourne Literary Society: Is Laughter Illegal? [new in UL]
- Rex v. Haddock: Crime in the Commons [new in UL; see Cowan's Case and Haddock's Case in SMMC]
- Pale, M.R., v. Pale, H.J., and Hume: "Not a Crime" [from SMMC]
- Index
General Cargo (Methuen, 1939) - Rex v. Haddock and the Friendly Feeding Place: The Indiarubber Sandwich
- Hogby, E.A. v. Hogby: The Price of Justice – 27 July 1938 [also in CLC]
- R. v. Benevolent Greyhounds, Ltd., Coates and Others: What is a Dog-Race?
- Mullins and Others against Bouverie: The Case of the Hundred Members
Codd's Last Case and Other Misleading Cases (Methuen, 1952) - Hogby, E.A. v. Hogby, W.M.: The Price of Justice – 27 July 1938 [from GC]
- Rex v. Reinstein: The Wizardry Case – 31 October 1951
- Integrated Press v. The Postmaster-General: What is a Newspaper? – 10 August 1938
- Greenwich Women's Rowing Club v. Haddock: What is a Rowing Boat? – 6 November 1940
- Haddock v. Silkworm: Books into Bombs – 30 June 1943
- Haddock v. Mole: The Case of the Orange Globes – 16 February 1944
- Haddock v. Tomkins and Isaac: What is a Reactionary? – 22 March 1944
- Fester v. The King; Fester v. Philpott, Rory and Company Ltd; Fester v. Platt: The "Law of the Land" – 18 April 1945
- The Corporation of Burbleton v. Stanislavski: How Free is a Freeman? – 4 July 1945
- The King v. Broadwick: The Dodged Deposit – 3 October 1945
- Haddock v. Oundle; Haddock v. Smith; Haddock v. The General Press; Haddock v. Buzzings and the Bilious Weekly; Haddock v. Cooper: The Whale Case – 19 March 1947
- Rex v. Bopple: "Avoid Litigation" – 12 May 1948
- House of Commons (Kitchen Committee) v. Haddock: The Egg of Exchange – 16 February 1949
- In re Early of Munsey: Stewer v. Corley: The Missing Day Case – 7 December 1949
Note: Fractions of a Day- Mortimer v. The British Broadcasting Corporation and Others: Sunday on the Air – 14 June 1950
- Canter and Others v. Howard: The Canter Poll – 6 June 1951
- Rex v. Haddock and Vine: Bookmakers All – 13 June 1951
- Thomas v. Lowder; Lowder v. Thomas: The Law of the Bar – 20 June 1951
- The Merchants' Case: Does Magna Carta Matter? – 27 June 1951
- Rex v. Gentle, Good and Haddock: "Paying to Rule" – 25 July 1951
- Rex v. Haddock; Haddock v. Rex: The Lords Rebel – 17 October 1951 [unrelated to the previous case with this title]
- Albert and Gloria Haddock v. The King: Whose Passport is Yours? – 24 October 1951
- Temper v. Hume and Haddock: Slander at Sea – 3 October 1951
- Rex v. Rungle: Codd's Last Case – 7 September 1951 [reprinted after the accession of Queen Elizabeth II as "Regina v. Rungle" – Lilliputs Extra Holiday Reading, August 1952]
- Index
Look Back and Laugh (Methuen, 1960) - Fardell v. Potts: The Reasonable Man – Punch, 9 July 1924
- Engheim, Muckovitch, Kettelburg, Weinbaum and Oski v. The King: Free Speech – Why?
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: Why is the House of Lords? – 9 August 1933
- Regina v. Feathers, Furblow, and Philanthropic Pools Ltd: The Pools Case – December 1959 [new; in BMP as The Law of the Pin]
Bardot M.P.? and other Modern Misleading Cases (Methuen, 1964) - In re the goods of Trample, C.M., deceased: Trample F. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue: "I Thee Endow ..."
- The Queen against Quirk: "Fair" Comment?
- Regina v. Rake, Smoot, and Shopley: Who Deceives Whom?
- Regina v. Hockey: How Much can you Kill a Burglar?
- Trout v. Celestial Publicity Ltd and Broot – I, II and III: End of a Nonsense – 29 October 1952
- Regina v. Haddock: Who Giveth This Woman? – 20 July 1955
- Inland Revenue v. Haddock: The "Bottle" Case
- Regina v. Wilpot: Members' Pay – 31 May 1954
- Regina v. Feathers, Furblow, and Philanthropic Pools Ltd: The Law of the Pin – December 1959
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Hoe: Born to be Taxed
- Regina v. Dark and Haddock: "Cheap Literature" – 4 January 1961
- Haddock v. the Arts Council of Great Britain: What is the Arts Council Up To? – 1957 [in WW as Good Old Scire Facias!]
- (Ex parte Haddock): Stamp Out "Stampery"
- The Queen v. Mortimer: The Laws of Sunday – 11 May 1960
- Regina v. Clatter: The Queen in the City
- Regina v. Strool: The Split Sentence – Punch, 1961 or 1962
- Regina v. Haddock: The Law of Sitting
- Regina v. Walton: ex parte Rusk: A Tent in the Road
- The Queen v. The S.S. Emperor Dulles: Money in the Channel
- Common Time
- Brigitte Bardot M.P.?
- Haddock v. the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Common Tea
- Bardot Regained
- Haddock v. The Generous Bank Ltd, Computer 1578/32/W1, the Magical Electronic Contrivances Ltd, and the Central Electricity Board: Reign of Error? – 13 February 1963
Wigs at Work (Penguin, 1966) - Introduction (APH)
- Regina v. Haddock: Who Giveth This Woman? – 20 July 1955
- Fardell v. Potts: The Reasonable Man – Punch, 9 July 1924
- Temper v. Hume and Haddock: Slander at Sea – 3 October 1951
- Cowfat v. Wheedle: What are Snails? – Punch, 28 May 1930
- Rex v. Haddock: Is Magna Carta Law? – 16 February 1927
- Carrot & Co. v. The Guano Association: The Expert Witness [undated here]
- Rex v. "The Colonel" and Others: The Fortune-Tellers – Punch, 21 May 1930
- Rex v. The Headmaster of Eton College: Is Homer Obscene? – Punch, 8 January 1930 *
- Haddock v. the King and Others: The Let and Hindrance [undated here] *
- House of Commons (Kitchen Committee) v. Haddock: The Egg of Exchange – 16 February 1949
- Rex v. Puddle: Blackmail – Punch, 2 April 1930 *
- Rumpelheimer v. Haddock: Port to Port – Punch, 2 July 1930
- Pipp, M.L., v. Pipp, K., and Forrest: The Decree Nisi – 2 August 1933
- Haddock v. Oundle; Haddock v. Smith; Haddock v. The General Press; Haddock v. Buzzings and the Bilious Weekly; Haddock v. Cooper: The Whale Case – 19 March 1947
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: Why is the House of Lords? – 9 August 1933 *
- Rex v. Pratt and Merry: The Tax on Virtue – 1 November 1933 *
- British Phosphates and Beef-extract, Ltd. v. The United Alkali and Guano Simplex Association: Why is a Jury? – 5 April 1933
- The Corporation of Burbleton v. Stanislavski: How Free is a Freeman? – 4 July 1945
- Trout v. Celestial Publicity Ltd and Broot: End of a Nonsense – 29 October 1952 *
- Rex v. Haddock and Vine: Bookmakers All – 13 June 1951 *
- Rex v. Venables and Others: The Dead Pronunciation – 31 January 1934
- Haddock and Others v. Board of Inland Revenue: Wear and Tear – Punch, 30 July 1930
- Tristram v. the Moon Life Assurance Company: Why is the Coroner? – 31 May 1933 *
- Tinrib, Rumble and Others v. the King and Queen: Fish Royal – 1 October 1924
- Board of Inland Revenue v. Haddock: No Taxation Without Representation – 14 July 1954 [new in WW]
- Regina v. Wilpot: Members' Pay – 31 May 1954
- The Queen v. Mortimer: The Laws of Sunday – 11 May 1960
- Rex v. Rungle: Codd's Last Case – 7 September 1951
- Rex v. Smith: Felony and Misdemeanour – 11 October 1933 *
- Regina v. Dark and Haddock: "Cheap Literature" – 4 January 1961
- Haddock v. the Arts Council of Great Britain: Good Old Scire Facias! – 1957 *
- Common Time [undated here]
- Haddock v. The Generous Bank Ltd, Computer 1578/32/W1, the Magical Electronic Contrivances Ltd, and the Central Electricity Board: Reign of Error? – 13 February 1963
- The Queen v. Gangling, Muffet, O'Shanaghan, and Many Others: Dolphin Sands – 10 November 1965 [new in WW]
- Index
* WW cases marked with an asterisk include notes added since their appearance in a previous collection. These mostly record later relevant cases in real life, up to 1966. The extra material in Good Old Scire Facias! covers Herbert's actual plan to have the Arts Council wound up for apparently excluding Literature from its "fine arts" remit.
More Uncommon Law: Being More Misleading Cases combining Bardot M.P.? and Codd's Last Case (Methuen, 1982) - As indicated in the title, this omnibus of 48 Misleading Cases simply reprints the full contents of Codd's Last Case and Other Misleading Cases and Bardot M.P.? and other Modern Misleading Cases, listed above.
Known Uncollected Cases - Rex v. Smith: Poodle Racing; or, The Big Humbug – Punch, 21 September 1927
- The Queen against Art Prints and Phascinating Photographs (Before the House of Lords): The Case of the Incorruptible Cops – Punch, 1963 or 1964 (in Pick of Punch 1964 ed. Bernard Hollowood: London, Hutchinson, 1964)
- [Concerning Haddock and mini-skirts] – Evening Standard, 1967