dure, which has gone through several editions,'and of a recent work on Taxation. He is a very competent editor, and these reports are up to the best standard. It would be almost superfluous to attempt to comment on all the numerous cases reported in these volumes. We have heretofore made liberal use in our "Weekly Digest of Recent Decisions" of Mr. Desty's welldrawn headnotes, and in so doing we flatter ourselves that we have been instrumental in extending the circula- tion of these reports.

BISHOP'S DIRECTIONS AND FORMS.-Prosecution and Defense. Practical Directions and Forms for the Grand Jury Room, Trial Court and Court of Appeal, in Criminal Causes, with Full Citations of Precedents from the Reports and Other Books, and a General Index to the Author's Series of Criminal Law Works. By Joel Prentiss Bishop, LL. D., Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1885.

This work completes the series of Mr. Bishop's books on the Criminal Law and Procedure, which now consist of six volumes: Criminal Law, in two volumes; Criminal Procedure, in two volumes; Statutory Crimes, in one volume, and the present work in one volume. It is one of the most masterly legal works which has ever been produced in the English language. The effort of the writer has everywhere been to extract the principles from the cases and allow the points and incidents to take care of themselves. In that portion of his work which relates to subjective law, the two volumes of his Criminal Law, he has succeeded in this task as no other modern writer has. The same may be said, though not in as great a measure, with reference to his Statutory Crimes. But in dealing with mere procedure, which is in a large measure arbitrary, we venture to think that he has not succeeded so well. Into this volume, for instance, he has attempted to compress an amount of matter which might better have been presented in two or three volumes. Now, in the process of compression, the writer finds that there is a point beyond which every effort at compression is made at the expense of perspicuity. The writer who attempts to go beyond this point must proceed, not by compression, but by elimination. He must preserve the more important rules, and these he must preserve in full distinctness of outline; the rest he must cast absolutely away, however painful it may be to him to part with it. In other words, he must proceed, for instance, as David Dudley Field proceeded when he made that masterpiece of analysis called his Civil Code. His effort was to make a statute which, though comprehensive, should not be exclusive. His aim was not to state the whole body of the law; no one man could venture to do that. He aimed to give in the best chosen words a statement of the leading rules of the law. Mr. Bishop, on the other hand, in his attempt to compress into one volume a vast amount of material, has not chosen to state the leading rules, but he has attempted, by an impossible generalization, to give the reader some idea of the scope and effect of all the decisions which he cites. At least, that is the way his works read to us. Such an attempt is necessarily impracticable. A vague statement of what is supposed to be the result of a large number of heterogeneous decisions conveys to the mind of the reader no distinct impression of what is contained in any one of them. It remains, however, an exceedingly valuable index to the decisions cited, and in this regard Mr. Bishop furnishes his readers with a key to a vast treasure-house of legal knowledge.

We hope that the subject of literary piracy in connection with law writing is not as bad as Mr. Bishop paints it. We have always been friendly to him and to his writings, and if he can prove that any one is "steal

ing" from him, we shall be glad to expose the "thief" in our columns, provided he can show "probable cause" for the exposure, and provided the person accused of the "theft" has an opportunity of seeing the charge before it is published, and of making a contemporaneous defense. But, notwithstanding Mr. Bishop seems to think that it is the duty of the legal journals to do so, we decline to organize our editorial force into a general smelling committee for the purpose of seeing whether somebody is not committing literary piracy upon somebody else. That, in our judgment, is the business of the party who may be aggrieved.

JETSAM AND FLOTSAM.

A PHILOSOPHER'S OPINION OF MONEY.-Money has a natural value; this is why it can be the standard of all other values. That money which is not paper is only a symbol. Where gold is struck with an imprint which attests the quantity and the quality, it is money. Two metals cannot both be two fundamental pieces of money. The possessor of money can use it or keep it, give it away or lend it; put it at interest, or sell it, as any other possession. The service of usurers and bankers consists in converting the money of one country into that of another; of transporting it from one town to another; of discounting notes not yet due. The great companies which this latter class forms, are always dangerous; their success is of little importance.-Montesquieu.

"EVEN OUR JUDGES MAY DISAGREE."-The decision of the General Term of the Superior Court, reversing the order of Judge Freedman, is another evidence to the ordinary mind that even our judges may disagree. In the old-fashioned days, when a man was made a judge simply on account of his legal ability, the public were wont to respect the opinions and decisions given; but to-day, when judicial positions are filled without any regard whatever to mental, attainments, but simply for financial and political reasons, it is very different. Now the usual remark is: "Oh! we don't care how the decision is here; wait until we get to the Court of Appeals." In other words, the preliminary proceedings are supposed to include everything up to the General Term decision, and the expenses incident thereto are deemed simply incidentals. It is a shame that such is the case.-New York Court [not Courtier] Journal.

VERBAL ADMISSIONS.-"With respect to all verbal admissions, it may be observed that they ought to be received with great caution, the evidence consisting, as it does, in a mere repetition of oral statements, is subject to much imperfection and mistake, the party himself either being misinformed or not having clearly expressed his own meaning or the witness having misunderstood him. It frequently happens also that the witness, by unintentionally altering a few expressions really used, gives an effect to the statement at variance with what the party actually did say." 1 Greenl. Ev. § 200. "So that we think that the written contract of the parties ought not to be disturbed in this case by these admissions proved in that way and in that place. They might have been misunderstood. The omission of a few words might have changed the whole meaning, and it is not safe to overthrow the written agreements of parties by testimony of so weak a kind as admissions of this sort, the testimony concerning which

is taken many years after the occurrence. On that ground alone we are of opinion that this bill ought to be dismissed." Wylie, J., in Hewitt v. Lewis, 13 Wash. Law Rep. 323.

A LAWYER'S CHARGE.-The only son of Sir John Macdonald, Premier of Canada, is a leading barrister here. He assisted at the storming of Batoche as sergeant in the 90th. In fact the best English and Scotch blood in Canada fixed bayonets to storm Batoche, and they stormed it. Winnipeg Correspondence of Army and Navy Journal.

LIGAN.-Law is like a sieve, you may see through it, but you must be considerably reduced before you can get through it. Lawyers are lucky. They can do lots of courting and not be engaged. Don't marry an attorney; it must be a sad thing to be hung to a limb of the law. A witness in a case of assault and battery, when asked what he said, replied, "I said to him with the toe of my boot, 'Go home!"" "I never was ruined but twice," said a wit, "once when I lost a law suit and once when I gained one." Said an Irish justice to an obstreperous prisoner on trial: "We want nothing but silence, and but little of that."-Ex.

WHAT IS MEANT BY A DISPOSING MIND.-In a probate suit of Mann v. Mann before Mr. Justice Butt, on the 20th inst., that learned judge is reported to have said that "he need not enter into an elaborate explanation of what was meant by the words 'disposing mind.' Substantially the question resolved itself into this-Was the testator in a state that he could originate a disposition of his property; could he recall to his mind not only the nature and amount of his property, but also those persons who, to use a common phrase, 'had claims on him' ?"-Solicitor's Journal.

MIXED METAPHORS.-Brewster, Q. C., afterwards Chancellor, addressing a jury, was reported to have said, "My client was not to be daunted! He took a defiant course! He took the bull by the horns and indicted him for perjury." George Bennett, Q. C., was fond of another strangely mixed metaphor-"My unhappy client received the seducer into his happy home. He placed the serpent in his bosom, but it stung him behind his back."-Stolen.

LEGAL EFFECT OF OPINIONS GIVEN BY JUDGES.Prof. J. B. Thayer of the Law School of Harvard University, recently had the patience to draw up a paper dealing with this topic, at the request of Chief Justice Bradley of Rhode Island. It is a learned and carefully drawn performance, dealing with a question of law which is very little understood either by lawyers or public men.

STOCK GAMBLING.-A bill to prevent gambling in stocks and produce of all kinds has just become law in Ohio, and its enforcement will be watched with interest. It makes all dealings on margins criminal acts. Any person offering to sell options, or exhibiting any quotations of the prices of any margins, futures or options, is punishable by fine and imprisonment. A clause punishes any person or company which communicates the prices on such marginal sales. This is intended to reach telegraph companies. The display of prices upon the stock boards is prohibited unless such display is part of a transaction in which the values involved are duly delivered to purchasers. Suits will be brought at once to test the constitutionality of the law. Its enforcement, however, is improbable; but it may compel speculators to deal directly with NewYork and Chicago.-New York Tribune.

HOW REED WAS ADMITTED TO THE BAR.-W. W. Morrow told me a story about Reed, of Maine, a great friend of Mr. Blaine. A California man was on East and called upon him. They chatted awhile about various things, and then, to this man's astonishment, Mr. Reed began to ask for all sorts of people in California. "You seem to know California folks well enough," said he. "I should think I did. I am from California myself." "You are! From where?" "From San Jose. I was admitted to the bar in California, and Judge Wallace examined me. I'll take my oath nobody was ever admitted to the bar with as simple an examination." "Well, that's a big statement to make." "But it's true. When I went up for examination the great question of the hour was the legal-tender act. Everybody was discussing its constitutionality. Some said it was constitutional, others said it was unconstitutional. The first question Judge Wallace asked me was, 'Is the legaltender act constitutional? I didn't hesitate a moment. I said simply, 'It is constitutional,' 'You can pass,' said Judge Wallace. 'We always pass a man who can settle great constitutional questions off-hand.'" San Francisco Chronicle.

AN AMERICAN JARNDYCE V. JARNDYCE.-Mr. Justice Paxson recently gave judgment, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a suit brought before the civil war by Asa Packer against his partners for an account. The judge begins an opinion, which occupies nearly fifty pages of the Pennsylvania reports, with this explanation:-"It is now over twenty-six years since this proceeding was commenced in the court below. During that time the three principal parties and several of the eminent counsel concerned in the cause have been removed by death. The paper books, Master's report, the arguments before the Master, the testimony and exhibits occupy twelve printed volumes. It was stated in the argument at Bar that the expenses of the litigation when it reached this court had amounted to over one million dollars. It involves many millions more. I mention these circumstances merely by way of apology for consuming nearly the whole of my summer vacation with the examination and study of the case."

SPANISH USE OF SACRED NAMES.-The names of Jesus and Christ sound very sacred to English-speaking people; but among the Spanish both are very common rames-given and surnames. At Laredo, the other day, Jesus H. Christ was registered at one of the hotels. We remember noting a few years ago that a Mexican named Jesus Christ had been hung for horsestealing. Truly there is nothing in a name.- Waxahatchie (Tex.) Mirror.

A WOODEN D-n.-Ex-Governor Long, of Massachusetts, in the course of his admirable address at the New-England dinner, quoted Judge Hoar as saying of the malcontents of a certain political campaign, "If they need must go out, they needn't slam the door so hard." This remark of the Judge's suggests what Tom Hood once had to say in regard to a malcontent who also dealt emphatically with a door:

He shut the door with a slam
That sounded like a wooden d-n.

-N. Y. Tribune.

The Central Law Journal.

ST. LOUIS, JULY 10, 1885.

on Criminal Law. He has also written on the Conflict of Laws, Evidence, Contracts, Agency, Medical Jurisprudence, and other subjucts. His latest work is a Commentary on American Law.

Doctor Francis Wharton, an engraving from whose photograph we give above, was born in Philadelphia, in 1820, his father being the late Mr. T. I. Wharton, of the Philadelphia bar. Doctor Wharton was also a grand nephew of William Rawle, the elder, the first United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, and a relative of Thomas Wharton, Jr, first Governor of the State. Doctor Wharton, after graduating at Yale College, was admitted to the bar, and was for several years Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, under the administration of Governor Shunk. Subsequently, he was, for nearly ten years, a professor in Kenyon College, Ohio, and then went abroad, where he remained for a period, being part of the time connected with the Institute of International Law, of which he is a member. After returning to this country he held professorships of Canon Law, Polity and Apologetics, in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and in Boston, of International Law. In March, 1885, he was appointed by the President counsel to the State Department at Washington, in matters of International Law. He was also made an LL. D. of Edinburg University in this year.

Doctor Wharton is best known by his works Vol. 21-No. 2.

CURRENT EVENTS.

STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS.-The programme of the next meeting of the Missouri State Bar Association embraces the following special features: 1. A paper by Henry Hitchcock, on "Some Deficiencies in our Laws Concerning Corporations;" 2. A paper by Charles Hammond, of Brunswick, on the "Rights and Liabilities of Married Women;" 3. A paper by Edward Higbee, of Lancaster, on "Amendments of the Practice Act;" 4. A paper by J. B. Gantt, of Clinton, on "The nisi prius Judge in our Judicial System;" 5. A paper by John L. Thomas, of De Soto, on "Jurisdiction;" 6. A paper by J. V. C. Karnes, of Kansas City, on "Evidence;" 7. Reception and banquet; 8. The annual address by George W. McCrary, of Kansas City, "Evolution in the Law."

The Tennessee Bar Association met at

Nashville on the first and second of July. We should think it would have been better for it to meet in some of the mountain resorts, in which that State abounds. The American Bar Association meets at Saratoga Springs on the 18th of August. The proceedings promise to be of unusual interest. The secretaries of other bar associations will confer a special favor on us by sending us notices of their meetings, and also printed copies of their proceedings when published. We claim to be the organ of the bar associations..

OVER-CHARGES IN COURT COSTS. The overcharges of clerks of courts is a scandal to the administration of justice. It is an abuse which exists everywhere. It takes place under the very eyes of the judges. It is an abuse which the members of the bar have not the manhood to resist. It is practiced to a greater extent in the higher than in the lower courts, and to a greater extent where the clerk is appointed by the judges than where

In

he is elected by the people, The Maryland Law Record has recently published, as an advertisement, at the request of a large number of lawyers, an editorial in a secular paper showing that the clerk of the Court of Appeals of that State makes a profit of 150 per cent. on the charges made for printing the records and briefs in cases in that court. In Missouri we have a system nearly as lavish, which was re-enacted by our last legislature, except that the cost does not fall upon the unsuccessful litigant, but upon the State. The clerk of each of the three appellate courts is required to furnish to the reporter of his court, copies of the brief used in every case, for which he is entitled to charge, and for which the State undertakes to pay, 15 cents per hundred words. To begin with, this charge is wholly unnecessary. The State ought never to pay one cent for printing the briefs of lawyers in its official reports. the second place the rules in these courts require, in addition to the brief filed with the clerk as a part of the record, that counsel file an extra brief for each judge; so that in every case it is possible to supply the reporter with an original of any brief filed in the It is believed that this course is taken by the clerks in some cases; that they merely certifiy these original briefs to the reporter and then charge the State for making them out at the rate of 15 cents per hundred words.* Then, as to the rate of this charge, 15 cents per hundred words, it is an equal wrong upon the State. The best type-writer copying can be had in St. Louis at 4 cents per hundred words. and it is believed that good work of this kind can be had equally as cheap in other portions of the State. But the greatest abuse in the matter of costs lies in the costs in criminal cases, which are paid by the State. The writer has reason to believe that if the bills of criminal costs, which are made out by the clerks of the courts of Missouri and certified by the judges, were carefully investigated by the judges, the aggregate would be cut down fully one-third. There seems to be absolutely no check upon this system of public plundering. The clerks of the Circuit Courts are elected by the people, and are generally influ

cause.

* The clerk of the St. Louis Court of Appeals certifies to the reporter of the court the briefs on file, where possible, and charges only the legal fee for the certificate.

ential politicians; and therefore the judges, who are themselves nominated by party conventions and elected by the people, do not like to watch them too closely, or incur their displeasure. The clerks of the appellate courts are appointed by the judges and are either court favorites, or, to use a less offensive word, men in whom the judges have peculiar confidence; and therefore they go unwatched, and these abuses goes on. Of course, clerks of courts ought to be fairly and well paid. The great body of them are honorable, hard-working and deserving men. But the practice of making excessive estimates of the number of words contained in transcripts made by them, and of charging for constructive services, grows on them insensibly, and, there being no substantial check upon it, it finally acquires the force of precedent, and becomes so to speak, an inherited abuse.

THE MANITOBA EXEMPTION LAW.-A good deal of agitation has recently taken place in Canada about a law passed by the legislature of the province of Manitoba, exempting certain property of debtors from execution. Under this law, as it is reported in the press dispatches, the judgment debtor may retain, exempt from seizure, household effects to the value of $500; clothing necessary for his family; books of professional men and tools of mechanics; food for sixty days; and, of the farm land on which he actually resides, up to an area of 160 acres, if only partially cultivated, with the house, stables and stock; while a judgment debtor other than a farmer may retain his residence up to the value of $2,500. The agitation which this statute has produced is calculated to draw curious attention to the difference between the constitutional law of Canada-for Canada now has a constitutional law-and that of the United States. Similar statutes have long existed in the United States, and in some of the Western and Southern States the exemptions are larger than those created by this Manitoba statute.1 These statutes, when retroactive by their terms, have been held to be void, under that

1 See Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, passim.

provision of the constitution of the United States, which declares that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.2

66

But under the theory of the omnipotence of the legislature, which is part of the British constitution, this Manitoba statute, if not disallowed by the Dominion Government under a species of veto power which that government possesses under the constitution of Canada, known as 'the British North America Act, 1867," will be valid, although retro-active. The Dominion parliament itself exercises the power of passing acts discharging the obligation of contracts, such as the so-called "Arrangement Acts" which insolvent railway companies procure from parliament in Great Britain; and the Supreme Court of the United States has gone so far on questionable grounds we venture to think as to hold such acts to be valid in their operation upon the rights of our own citizens enforceable in our own courts. It is to be perceived that the difference between the constitional law of Canada and that of the United States with reference to the abrogation of local statutes, is that the legislatures of the several American States have plenary power to pass laws, except so far as they are restrained, (1) by the constitution of the United States, (2) by the constitution of the particular state. And whether a State statute is so inhibited is in every case a judicial, and not a political question; it is to be decided by the judicial courts, and not by the "government." Our system is founded on the idea of State sovereignty; theirs is founded on the idea of provincial subordination. In theory, no discretionary power exists above our States which is capable of overruling their legislation; but above the Canadian Provinces ex

2 Const. U. S. Art. 1, § 10.

3 Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, (reversing Gunn v. Barry, 44 Ga. 353); Chambliss v. Jordan, 50 Ga. 81; Wofford v. Gaines, 53 Ga. 485; Gunn v. Thornton, 49 Ga. 380; Clark v. Trawick, 56 Ga. 359; Larence v. Evans, 50 Ga. 216; Whittington v. Colbert, 50 Ga. 584; Grant v. Cosby, 51 Ga. 460; Smith v. Whittle, 50 Ga. 626; Burnside v. Terry, 51 Ga. 186; McPhee v. Guthrie, 51 Ga. 83; Smith v. Ezell, 51 Ga. 570; Pratt v. Atkins, 54 Ga. 569; Wheeler v. Redding, 55 Ga. 87; Bush V. Lester, 55 Ga. 579; Lesley v. Phipps, 49 Miss. 790; Pennington v. Seal, 49 Miss. 528; The Homestead Cases, 22 Gratt, 266; Russell v. Randolph, 26 Gratt. 705; Cochran v. Darcy, 5 S. C. 125; (s. c., 1 C. L. J. 179); Ex parte Hewett, 5 S. C. 409; De La Howe v. Harper, 5 S. C. 470.

4 Canada Southern R. Co. v. Gebhard, 17 Rep. 225.

ists the Dominion Government, which possesses such a discretionary power. The Provinces of Canada, therefor, have really no more legislative power than our municipal corporations have in the United States; for these corporations possess a delegated legislative power, and their legislation, when within the scope of their granted powers, cannot be overturned, except by the legislature of the particular State, and, in some cases, as in the case of the City of St. Louis, not even by the State legislature. Whether the Canadian system is preferable to ours, is a very large question. It is perceived that the "centralization" which is so much dreaded by one school of politics in America, exists in a large degree in Canada: and if the Dominion Parliament should overrule this act, of the Manitoba legislature, it would be exactly what our politicians would call an act or instance of centralization. But after all, if local legislation is to be suppressed because deemed unreasonable, unjust, or contrary to the general policy, the question remains, is it not better that the power to suppress it should be entrusted to a government responsible to the electors rather than to an appointive judiciary responsible for discretionary acts to no one.

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS.

5

USURY-NOT USURY FOR BORROWER TO MAKE GOOD TO LENDER WHAT HE WILL LOSE BY WITHDRAWING MONEY FROM SAVING'S BANK.-In Washburne v. Ryder, the City Court of New York recently held that if A. has money on deposit in a savings bank, which will not draw interest unless it is allowed to remain a given length of time, and B. desires to borrow it of A., it is not usury for A. to require B. to make good to him what he would lose by the immediate withdrawal of the deposits. The court cite Hager v. McCullough, and Thurston v. Cornell."

USURY-GIVING ONE EMPLOYMENT IN CON

Dally Register, June 23, 1885. ·

62 Denio, 119.

7 38 N. Y. 285.