February 27, 1899. The trial which began on No- common "Generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) the absence of mistake or accident, (4) a scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others, (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. * * * There is not a fact or circumstance in the Barnet case that, taken by itself, legitimately tends to prove any essential fact in the Adams case. "The mere fact that the two crimes are parallel as to the methods and means employed in their execution does not serve to identify the defendant as the poisoner of Mrs. Adams unless his guilt of the latter crime may be inferred from its similarity to the farmer. Such an inference might be justified, if it had been shown conclusively that the defendant had killed Barnet and that no other person could have killed Mrs. Adams. But no such evidence was given." Judge Gray, who, with Judge Parker, dissented from the prevailing opinion relative to the admission of the Barnet case evidence, said: "With respect to the evidence relating to the death of Barnet, with some hesitation, I have reached the conclusion that it was admissible within the recognized exceptions to the rule which excludes proof by the prosecution of another crime. The rarity of the deadly drug used, within a few weeks, in both cases, its concealment in the same kind of powders as taken by Mrs. Adams and as found in Barnet's room after his death, and the use of the mail by the sender of the poison, in connection with the evidence showing, or tending to show, that defendant made use of the names of Barnet and of Cornish, in the hiring and use of private letter boxes, for various purposes, including the procuring of patent medicines, all of these facts would, if competently proved, have a tendency to show a unity, or similarity, of mental plan and operation, and bear upon defendant's identification, however inconclusive in themselves. "As to the handwriting evidence, I concur with Judge Werner's construction of the statutes; but, while conceding the admissibility of opinion evidence as to handwriting, I am, nevertheless, indisposed to concede to it such evidentiary character and strength as, like a fact, to constitute a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, upon which a capital conviction shall depend. Such evidence is entitled to be considered by the jury as corroborative of other evidence, connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime." English Botes. Truth hears that Lord Davey has expressed a wish to resign his office as Lord of Appeal, but that he has been strongly urged to reconsider this decision. It is now definitely stated that, in consequence of failing health, Lord Justice Rigby has sent in the resignation of his seat in the Court of Appeal. The learned judge was appointed direct from the bar to the Court of Appeal on the 11th of October, 1894, having previously occupied the posts of solicitorgeneral and attorney-general in 1892 and 1894 respectively. Mr. Justice Jelf is announced to write for the forthcoming Life of Lord Russell of Killowen an appreciation of the late lord chief justice. The biography is by Mr. Barry O'Brien, author of the volumes to the memory of Parnell and Wolfe Tone. "I think the judgment of conviction should be Lord James of Hereford will be responsible for the sections dealing with Lord Russell's reputation as an advocate. reversed and that the defendant should have a new trial for error in the admission of testmiony relating to declarations made by Barnet to his physicians of his having received through the mail Kutnow powders, of his having taken a dose of them and of his condition being due to that fact. In any view, such evidence was quite incompetent, and of course prejudicial to the defendant. The Duke of Cornwall at the close of his imperial tour received from the loyal citizens of Newfoundland a present which even to so august a personage would be embarrassing if the law be no respecter of persons, says the Law Journal (London). The gift was of a Newfoundland dog with cart, in 66 which the animal was to draw the royal children. required dealing with." Others may have a Under the orders for suppressing rabies imported deeper, but no man at the bar has a wider, experidogs are required to dwell in one place for six ence of the scope of the law, the ways of litigants, months under the survey of the board of agriculture. the weaknesses, of witnesses, and the personnel of The liberty of the "donated" animal even to scions the legal profession. A leader of the Oxford Circuit, of the royal house is thus restricted in the public he is old enough to have measured swords with interest, and many fond owners of pet dogs have Lords Llandaff and James of Hereford, but his been mulcted during the last year or so for their contemporary and protagonist was the Common Serinability either to stay in one place or part from jeant, Mr. Bosanquet. Both were long considered their pets. And even when the animal is out of to be in the running for ermine, but both appeared to quarantine it cannot lawfully draw the dog cart have outlived their opportunity. Mr. Bosanquet either within the metropolitan police district (2 & 3 accepted the lower appointment; Mr. Jelf cunctando Vict., chap. 47, § 56) or in any part of the United restituit rem. Behind the mask of a somewhat unKingdom (17 & 18 Vict., chap. 60, § 2). But gainly figure and features, his ability should adorn there is this much comfort for the royal infants the bench." Mr. Jelf is the second son of the late that the latest enactment is limited to draught by Rev. Richard Jelf, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, dogs on public highways, and the objects of the and principal of King's College, London, was born loyal donors may be satisfied by exercise of their on the 10th September, 1837, and was educated at present within the royal grounds. Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his M. A. degree in 1863. He was called by the Inner Temple in April, 1863, was created a queen's counsel in 1880, elected a bencher of his inn in 1884, and has held the recordership of Shrewsbury since 1879. He married, in 1867, Jane, youngest daughter of the late Rev. W. Clark King, M. A., vicar of Norham, Northumberland. Referring to the reputation of Lord Justice Mathew as a humorist, a writer in the Daily Telegraph says that "Poland, at whose name Freedom shrieks," was his description, on a recent occasion, of Sir H. Poland, the esteemed treasury counsel. "Yes, a re-pairing lease," he replied, when someone suggested that a certain judge had taken a new lease of life since his marriage. A supplement to the London Gazette, issued recently, contains a proclamation announcing the insertion in the present style and titles of the king of the words "and of the British dominions beyond the seas," so that the full style and titles will in future run: Edward VII, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." The vacancy on the High Court Bench caused by the resignation of Mr. Justice Day has been filled by the appointment of Mr. A. R. Jelf, K. C. The Law News says of him: "The new judge is one in whom the whole of the profession will feel unbounded confidence, and the one thought that will present itself to the minds of all lawyers is, Why has his promotion been delayed for so many years? Few advocates have in their time shown a greater aptitude for dealing with every kind of case, and both as a good lawyer and a hard-fighting advocate Mr. Jelf has long been held in high esteem. Another consideration which is always welcome is that the new judge owes his position entirely to his own personal merit." The following, from the Solicitor Journal, is a good example of the frank way in which the legal journals of Great Britain comment upon current events: "The appointment of Mr. Justice Jelf is an appropriate complement to that of Mr. Justice Walton. Not a learned specialist, but an all-round lawyer, advocate and crossexaminer, he has been met as a dangerous antagonist in any and every court, and not infrequently even in the Chancery Division, when awkward witnesses Dr. Goudy, the regius professor of civil law at Oxford, at a meeting the other evening, lent the weight of his name to the proposal that the State should provide legal assistance for the poor in the same way that it makes provision for their physical and mental needs. This is a small division of the much larger question which has sometimes been mooted, whether the State, as the law giver and interpreter, should not bear the whole cost of litigation a proposal of a revolutionary character, it is true, but for which much might be urged when it is remembered that litigants are called upon every day to pay for the mistaken interpretations of the law which every judge, however able, is liable to make, and does make. We agree, however, that this larger question is not likely to come within the range of practical politics for some time yet, at all events till the war is over, but we are entirely in accord with Dr. Goudy's plea for a consideration of the suggestion he advanced, and in particular with his view that it is nothing less than scandalous that the State should leave any prisoner on his trial unprovided with professional assistance. --Law Times. A point is raised in this week's Truth which, for this country at any rate, is rather of theoretical than practical interest, says the Solicitors' Journal. A message "Come Monday ”—was handed in to a postal telegraph office for transmission to a person about to enter a new employment. It was delivered to him as "Come to-day." He acted upon it in this form, threw up his old employment prematurely, came up to London, and was put to some small expense altogether 50s. or so. The post his German client looked on in rapt admiration, and he was heard to remark: 66 6 666 666 Ach! dot's der kind of lawyer to haf, yet.' 'Why?' he was asked. Because,' was the reply, he hollers so loud he scarces der jury."— Exchange. After hearing evidence in an assault case between man and wife, in which the wife had had a deal of provocation, the magistrate, turning to the husband, remarked, "My good man, I really cannot do anything in this case." " But she has cut a piece of my ear off, sir." "Well," said the magistrate, "I will bind her over to keep the peace." "You can't," shouted the husband; "she's thrown it away."- Tit-Bits. you," he said. office people were sorry, but did not offer to express the sympathy in money, and of course against the postmaster-general no such liability could be enforced. We must take our telegrams and trust to their being right. But as against a telegraph company, it is an interesting question whether damages can be recovered by the receiver of a telegram for a mistake due to the negligence of the company's servants. In Dickson v. Reuter's Telegraph Co. (26 W. R. 23, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 1), the Court of Appeal decided the point in favor of the telegraph company. The contract, it was said, was between the company and the sender of the telegram, not between the company and the receiver, and for negligence in its performance the receiver could not sue. It was urged that the error in the telegram amounted to a misrepresentation, on which the receiver could sue if he was damaged. But the Court of Appeal A constable not far from Clarksburg, and well pointed out that it was at most an innocent mis- known to all was called upon to serve an attachrepresentation. In America the question has been ment on a handsome young widow, had the followvery frequently raised, and with a different result.ing experience: "Madam, I have an attachment for It has been held "almost without exception, that a telegraph company is liable to the person to whom a message is sent for negligence in the transmission or delivery of the message: Ruling Cases, 24 (p. 783), American note to Dickson v. Reuter's Telegraph Co. The ground suggested by the To this the woman replied: "It is not leap year, learned author of the note just referred to is that and I would rather you would do the courting." the statutes usually impose on the companies the Madam," said the constable, a little angry, "this exercise of diligence in the transmission and delivery is no time for trifling, the 'squire is waiting." of messages, and that a breach of the duty gives a "Oh, I prefer a minister," she said, a 'squire right of action to any person injured. The matter married me the first time, and I had bad luck." The is discussed at some length by Sir Frederick Pollock, constable's friends want to know when he intends in the last edition of Torts (6th ed., p. 534), and he to serve the attachment.- Exchange. inclines on principle to the American view, apparently upon the ground that a telegraph company assumes a public calling and is bound to perform its work in that calling with due diligence. But he suggests that damages would rarely be recoverable, as it would be impossible to discover what results of the negligence were foreseen by the company; in other words, the actual damage would usually be too remote. In this country the question only affects foreign companies, and is only open in the House of Lords, but it raises some very difficult considerations. She blushed and said: "The attachment is reciprocated." The officer stammered: "You misunderstand; you must proceed to court." 66 In the early Indiana days, when both judges and attorneys literally "rode the circuit,” a newly elected judge, noted for his lack of personal beauty, was plodding along on horseback between two county seats one fine summer day. Passing through a piece of woods he was suddenly confronted by a hunter, who unslung his squirrel rifle from his shoulder and ordered the horseman to dismount. startled by this peremptory command and the fact that the hunter was, if possible, even more deficient in facial symmetry than himself, the jurist began to remonstrate. He was quickly cut short, however, by the remark: Somewhat "It's no use talking. I long ago swore that if I ever met a homlier man than I am I'd shoot him on sight." The judge was quick-witted, and, sizing up the situation, he promptly got off his horse. Folding his arms, he faced his assailant and said: "If I am any homlier than you are, for heaven's sake shoot, and be quick about it!" Then came a hearty mutual laugh, and a black bottle, produced from the judge's saddle-bags, was duly investigated. After this came self-introductions, and the rising jurist gained an enthusiastic supporter for his future campaigns.- Lippincott's Monthly Magazine. |