« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
undistinguishably. Under insolvent proceedings, a therefore was not liable. Ct. Appeal, March 16, 1880. receiver was appointed. Held, (1) that such an insti- Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. London & tution is a mere trustee for the benefit of the deposit. Provincial Supply Association Limited. Opinions by ors. (2) That a depositor who borrowed money from Bramwell, Baggallay and Thesiger, L. JJ., 42 L. T. the bank, secured by his note or mortgage, cannot Rep. (N. S.) 569. (Subsequently affirmed in House of offset his debt against the amount of his deposit at the Lords.) time when the decree of insolvency was made. (3) That
PARTNERSHIP - AUTHORITY OF PARTNER — STATUTE the so-called “special” depositors are not entitled to priority in payment over the other class of depositors. sumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to
OF LIMITATIONS. -- One of two partners must be pre(4) That debts and expenses contracted by the bank in
have anthority to make a payment ou account of a carrying on its ordinary business, are to be preferred.
debt due by the firm, so as to take the debt out of the (5) That a claim, under a covenant in the lease, for
statute of limitations as against the other. A, one of rent accruing after the surrender of the premises to
the partners in a firm, gave instructions to their the lessor by the receiver, cannot be maintained. (6)
solicitor to put in force and realize a bill of sale held That money paid to the bank in exchange for its check,
by the firm, and to place the proceeds when received given for the accommodation of the payee, which was
“to the account of the firm,” who were then indebted dishonored, presumably went into the funds, and the
to the solicitor for his bill of costs. The solicitor hardebt should be preferred. (7) That checks given to
ing sued the two partners for the balance of his bill of depositors, on account of deposits, are not to be prefer
Held red. Newark Sav. Inst. v. Case, 1 Stew. 552; Grant on
costs, B pleaded the statute of limitations. Banking, 614; Huntington v. Sav. B'k, 6 Otto, 388; | ion), that there was sufficient evidence for the jury of
(affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench DivisCorte v. Soc. for Sav., 32 Conn. 173; Bunnell v. Collins
a part payment so as to take the case out of the statute ville Sav. Soc., 38 id. 203; Osborn v. Byrne, 43 id. 155;
of limitations as against B. Ct. of Appeal, March 12, Pratt v. Levan, 1 Miles, 358. New Jersey Court of
1880. Goodwin v. Parton & Page, 42 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) Chancery, Feb. Term, 1880. Stockton, Atty.-Gen., v.
568. Mechanics & Laborers' Savings Bank. Opinion by Runyon, Chancellor.
WILL - TAKES EFFECT AS TO TESTATOR'S ESTATE AT DEATH -- CONSTRUCTION. — - A testator devised and be.
queathed all his property to trustees for his wife and RECENT ENGLISH DECISIONS.
children and a few months afterward executed a sepa
ration deed, reserving to himself a power of appointCOVENANT - BY TENANT TO PAY TAXES AND ASSESS
ment by will over one-third of his property, and MENTS. — The plaintiff, as owner of certain premises declaring trusts of the remainder for his wife and in the borough of Brighton, was summoned by the children. Held, that the will, speaking as to the estate urban sanitary authority of the borough for not com- comprised in it as from the testator's death, was a good plying with a notice to abate a nuisance thereon occa
execution of the power; and that the separation deed sioned by defective sewage, and for that purpose to and the circumstances could not be looked at to collect make drainage communication with the
from them an expression of a contrary intention. Re On the hearing of this summons, an order was
Ruding's Settlement (L. Rep. 14, Eq. 266) questioned. made directing the plaintiff to execute the works in
Decision of Malins, V. C., reversed. Thomas v. Jones, question, under section 96 of the Public Health Act, 2 J. & H. 475. Ct. of Appeal, March 12, 1880. Boyes v. 1875 (38 and 39 Vict., ch. 55), which he accordingly did.
Cook. Opinions by James, Brett and Cotton, L. JJ., The defendant was tenant of the premises under a 42 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 556. lease by which he covenanted (inter alia) to " discharge * * all taxes, rates, duties, and assessments whatsoever
taxed, charged, rated, MEASURES TO RELIEVE OUR OVER-BURassessed or imposed on the said demised premises or
DENED COURTS. any part thereof, or upon the landlord or tenant in respect thereof." Held, that under this covenant the
Saratoga, Aug. 13th, the committee appointed the cost of executing the above works. Rawlins v.
submitted the following suggestions and conclusions, Briggs, L. R, 3 C. P. D, 368; Thompson v. Lapworth,
which were adopted : 17 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 507; Cross v. Raw, L. R., 9 Ex.
Any amendment of the organic law of the State, and 209; Hartly v. Hudson, L. R., 4 C. P. D. 367; Case & especially of the article which establishes the judiciary, Tidswell v. Whitworth, 15 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 574, dis
is work requiring careful thought, deliberate consideratinguished. ('. P. Div., Dec. 20, 1879. Budd v. Mar
tion, and the substantial co-operation of the courts, shall. Opinion by Grove, J., 42 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 149.
with the legalization of the people, in all parts of the DEFINITIONS PERSON CORPORATION
State. In any attempted change in that article of the By the Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict., ch. 121), Constitution, it is essential to have due regard to both section 1, it is unlawful for “any person,' without economy and efficiency. It seems to be conceded that being qualified under the act, “to sell or keep open some amendment of the Constitution is necessary and shop for retailing, dispensing, or compounding poi- demanded by the increasing business of the State, and sons," and by section 15 “any person " doing so is for the due and speedy administration of law. The liable to a penalty. Defendants were a company regis-chief cause of complaint may be found, in part, from tered under the Companies Act, 1862 and 1867. Their an inadequate judicial force, and to some extent in an business included a department for the sale of drugs, imperfect organization of the courts, by reason of and for retailing and compounding poisons. The which the practical usefulness of the present force is manager of this department, who was paid by salary, inadequate or rendered unavailable. The existing but was also a shareholder in the company, was quali- force is substantially that created a third of a century fied under the Pharmacy Act, being a registered chem- ago, and then deemed adequate. During the interval ist, and his assistants were duly qualified. The man- which has elapsed the State has doubled in population, aging director was not qualified Plaintiffs sued its business bas quadrupled, and the value of its taradefendants to recover a penalty under section 15 for ble property has increased quite five-fold. The nuselling poisons. Ileld (reversing the judgment of the merical strength of the court of last resort has not Queen's Beuch Division), that the defendant company been increased. The Constitution of 1870 relieved four was not a “person” within sections 1 and 15, and I justices from duty in the Court of Appeals, and an
plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant | ATM the meeting of the members of the State Bar at
amendment in 1879 added a single justice in the Second liable for firm debts; tenancy by entireties; possession District. Aside from these additions and such relief to maintain trespass as to chattels; when creditor canas has been secured by an increase of local courts in not attack conveyance as fraudulent; statutory degrees cities, the present force is the same as that created by of murder. the Constitution of 1846. Without considering the complaints of the law's delays which come from differ
CORRESPONDENCE. ent portions of the State, it must be apparent to the intelligent, that the present force, as now organized, is
COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION. wholly inadequate to the business of the State. We are satisfied that the accumulated and accumulating To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal: business in the Court of Appeals reuders that court,
I have not noticed any comment in your columns with its present force, unequal to its dispatch. Not
upon chapter 480, Laws of 1880, which declares that withstanding the well-directed industry and laborious
“the county courts
shall have jurisdiction devotion of the members of that tribunal, it already in civil actions where the relief demanded is the reoccasions a delay of more than one year, and before covery of a sum of money not exceeding $3,000.” any relief can be given by an amendment to the Con- Should not some one “rise to explain ?" The Constistitution, two or more years will be required to reach tution, art. 6, § 15, declares that “They (county courts) an unpreferred cause in that court, and time will in- shall have original jurisdiction in all cases where the crease the growing embarrassment. Remedy must be
defendauts reside in the county and in which the found in the increase of the working force of the damages claimed shall not exceed $1,000.'' To the minds court, or in some limitation upon appeals to that court.
of most people this is an absolute limitation which the We are not prepared now to recommend which should | Legislature cannot enlarge. Possibly the law-makers be applied.
had in mind the succeeding section of the Constitution In the Supreme Court of the State the evil is still which declares that “They (county courts) shall also greater. In many of the larger counties, in the Fifth, have such other original jurisdiction as shall from time Seventh and Eighth Districts, fully two years are re
to time be conferred upon them.” But how this senquired to reach an unpreferred cause at the Circuit tence can be deemed to enlarge the powers before Court. In the General Term of the Fourth Depart-limited, is not easily seen. The word “other," in its ment there is a substantial blockade. Six hundred ordinary sense, means such new powers (or such juriscauses are now undisposed of on the calendar of that diction over some new subject) as had not before been court, and the embarrassment is increasing yearly, not given, subject, however, to the $1,000 limitation. How withstanding the faithful labors of au able court. The does this strike the profession? same evils exist, to a greater or less extent, in other
SUBSCRIBER. departments. We can discover no remedy except in
Port RICHMOND, S, I., July 29, 1880. an increase of the judicial force, or in the transfer of the powers and judicial force of superior city courts To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal: to the Supreme Court, when a wider field of usefulness What is the effect of chapter 480 of Laws of 1880, can be opened to that force, or in both. The consoli- which purports to amend section 1 of chapter 467 of dation of some of these courts with the Supreme 1870, extending the jurisdiction of the county courts ('ourt in some form is worthy of consideration, but we to $3,000? It makes no reference to sectiou 310 of the believe that further consultation and mature thought Code of Civil Procedure; and besides, all of said chapand deliberation should be given the subject before ter 467 of 1870 is repealed by chapter 245 of 1880, which any definite plan of amendment to the Contitution be takes effect Sentember 1. proposed. We therefore recommend that a committee
Yours, respectfully, of the Bar of the State, representing the several judi
J. NEAL PERKINS. cial districts, be appointed by this meeting and charged SYRACUSE, N. Y., July 31, 1880. with the duty of conferring with the State Bar Association and the Bar Association of the city of New
MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE. York, to the end that an amended article be perfected and submitted to the Legislature at its next session To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal: and its approval by that body and the people may be
In reading our new Code that is to be, I notice that secured.
section 1761, treating of marriage after divorce for The following committee was appointed: First Dis- adultery, forbids the marriage of a guilty defendant trict, Stephen P. Nash and John E. Burrell; Second until the death of the plaintiff. Remembering the District, Homer 0. Nelsou and Winchester Britton; successful efforts of such an one with the Legislature Third District, Henry Smith and F. L. Westbrook; of 1879, I turn to chapter 321 of the Session Laws of Fourth District, William H. Sawyer and A. A. Yates; that year, where there is a different provision. This Fifth District, C. D. Adams and John C. Churchill; act is not expressly repealed by chapter 245 of 1880. Sixth District, George M. Diven and Orlow W. Chap- What is the effect of section 3355 on it? Which will be man; Seventh District, J. C. Cochrane and James law after September 1? I ask for the sake of those Wood, Jr.; Eighth District, A. G. Rice and M. H. faller ones whose conduct has been uniformly good Peck.
for five years, and would venture again on the matrimonial sea.
C. G.I. NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS.
UTICA, N. Y., Aug. 7, 1880.
XVIII AMERICAN DECISIONS.
To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal : HIS volume contains cases from 1 Stewart, 7 Con- In view of the approaching first of September when
necticut, 2 Blackford, 7 T. B. Monroe, 7 Martin N. the nine chapters of the new Code go into effect, will S., 1, 2, Harris & Gill, 1 Bland Chancery, 5 Halsted, 8, you kindly furnish us some light on the following sub9 Cowen, 2 Devereux Law, 1 Devereux Equity, 1ject: In Laws of 1879 (chapter 3:21), it was enacted Rawle, 1 Harper Law, 1 Vermont, 1 Randolph, with that a defendaut in a divorce suit, convicted of adultery, important notes on trover by finder of lost articles ; could, by permission of the court, after five years from corporate acts at meeting irregularly called; forcible the date of the decree, and on the marriage of the entry; States not subject to garnishment; mandamus plaintiff and proving good conduct during such time, as to legislative acts; partner's separate property, when I remarry.
Section 1761 of the New Code (additional chapters), In an election case before Judge Brady, of this State, adopted May 6, 1880, enacts, that a defendant adjudged some years ago, after considerable debate between the guilty of adultery shall not marry again until the death lawyers, the judge himself interposed with: “ Well, of plaintiff — re-enacting the provisions of section 49, gentlemen, let us get to the merits of the case. I suparticle 3, title 1, chapter 8, part 2 of Revised Statutes. pose that all that either party desires in this case is an
The information desired is: Does section 761 of the honest count.” At which there rose before the judge new nine chapters repeal chapter 321 of Laws of 1879 ? ou the instant a wild and strange figure, not unfamiliar An answer to the above will greatiy oblige,
to the courts, nor yet to the footlights, which with A. L. hand upon its heart bowed low and uttered in sepul
chral tones: “May it please the court, Ecce homo!"
It was the Count Joannes.
The following forecast
of the fortunes of Ex-President Grant, which is quite To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal :
as good and veracious a prediction in its way as many This is a good season of the year to have your readers ancient oracles, and more moderu prophesies, may be as well as yourself answer the following legal problem, found in the index to the first volume of the Probate taken from actual experience: A, B and C each hold a and Divorce Reports, published 31st Desember, 1869, p. mortgage of $5,000 on a certain parcel of land. The 786: “General Grant - Limited Administration."order of time of delivery is A, B, C; the order of date Canada Law Journal. of record is C, B, A.
When B took his mortgage he knew of A's unrecorded prior lien, and when C took his he had like
The Daily News reports the following scene between knowledge of B's but not of A's.
judge, jury and advocate at the county court at BridThe property, at a public sale, brought $10,000.
port. The judge was Mr. Lefroy, and in a case before Which two mortgagees are entitled to be satisfied out
him 101. was claimed for breach of warranty of a mare
which, as his honor said, could not be got into harness of that? Awaiting your own solution, I am, Yours truly,
without people standing in danger of having their “MIDSUMMER."
brains knocked out. The judge held that the animal NEW YORK, Aug. 7, 1880.
being vicious, the plaintiff was entitled to his claim, and directed the jury before whom the case was beard
to find a verdict accordingly. But on the ground that NOTES.
no warranty was given, the jury found for the defendant, whose solicitor, Mr. Joliffe, claimed the ver
dict, upon which the judge began to expostulate with THE
Southern Law Review for August-September the jury as to disbelieving respectable witnesses, and contains the following leading articles: Negligence said their verdict was directly contrary to their oath. of telegraph companies, by Edwin G. Merriam; Form- Mr. Joliffe said this was the most extraordinary course ation of the Federal Constitution, by W. T. Brantly; of things he had ever heard in his life, but was told to Insurance Agents, by James O. Pierce; Liability of hold his tongue or he would be removed from the Directors of Corporations, by Seymour D. Thompson; court. The jury, said his honor, had no power to find and a number of most excellent book reviews, in which such a verdict. The jury said they could not alter their department the Review is easily at the head of all legal verdict; but his honor said they could. Mr. Joliffo periodicals. The third volume of the North-west- said the jury thought with him and the public that the ern reporter, published at St. Paul, by West Publish-verdict was according to law. He dared say the lord ing Company, has 1016 pages, and all the decisions of chancellor would have something to say on the subject. the Supreme Courts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, His Honor said he did not care for the public, and (to Michigan, Nebraska and Dakota, from Nov. 22, 1879, to Mr. Joliffe): You public nuisance, be quiet; you are a Jan. 10, 1880. The first volume of the Federal Re- public nuisance. Mr. Joliffe replied that he did not porter, issued by the same publishers, contains 976 care about His Houor intimated he would not pages and all the decisions of the Federal Circuit and allow effect to be given to the verdict. Mr. Joliffe: District Courts from March to May, 1880. The books We will compel it by mandamus. His Honor said the are handsomely printed on good paper. - Statistics jury were perversely obstinate, and was proceeding, show that the volumes of Alabama Reports, from the when Mr. Joliffe protested against this intimidation of 52d to the 61st, inclusive, contain 278 reversals and 276 | the jury, adding: His Honor had not taken a single affirmances.
note of the case. Where were his honor's notes? The
Judge: Be quiet; be quiet! Mr. Joliffe said he was A Kansas judge in a murder case, addressing the adopting his present course in order that this matter au uco in the ourt room : " Gentlemen, the court
might be properly ventilated; he intended to see that wishes you would let somebody dio a natural death
an improper course was not taken. His Houor: Go here, if only to show strangers what an excellent cli- and finish your speech in the street; I say the jury mate we have. George Jacob Holyoake, in “Nine- have found a pordict contrary to law. Mr. Joliffe: teenth Century.” Mr. Holyoake has wrongfully located They have found a verdict not contrary to law. Ilis this story. Kansas is a very orderly State. It is prob- Honor: I say it is not according to law or the evidence. ably not predicable of any State. The recent state- I direct the verdict to be entered the other way. Mr. ment in the newspapers that the only way for a Joliffe: We will see about that, sir; that only shows man to be hanged in Texas is to steal a four-dollar the necessity That is why the defendant had the mule, is also libellous. They do a great amount of prudence to summon a jury. I have no doubt the hanging in Texas, and it must be borne in mind that public will be very much benefited by the jury being very many of the homicides there are committed in summoned here to-day. The foreman of the jury, on mutual affrays. We should have felt a little more sure
being appealed to by his Honor, said he had given a of Texas justice, however, if that murderer Currie verdict according to his conscience. Mr. Jolife again had not been acquitted.
complained of his Honor's conduct. The Judge: I
wish you would exercise a little common sense. Mr. We find an amusing example of mixed metaphor in Joliffe. I regret that some other persons are not gora recent judicial opinion concerning clerical miscon- erned by a little common sense. Thus in great disduct, where it is said: "A wolf in sheep's clothing has order the proceedings terminated, the jury firmly invaded their ranks and sits at their council board." | abiding by their verdict.
Albany Law Journal.
means to find out the whole number of votes cast, by which it might be learned what proportion the
number cast in favor of the ratification bore to the ALBANY, AUGUST 28, 1880.
whole number, there is no source from which this
court can ascertain whether the amendment received CURRENT TOPICS.
a majority of all the votes cast at the election or
not. As the amendment was submitted upon the THE Nation and the New York Times are having day of the general spring elections throughout the
a little misunderstanding about the late In- State, and as there were, by law, officers to elect at diana decision on the constitutional amendments. the same time in the various counties, it must be It does not concern us, except to set ourselves right presumed that other votes than those for or against as against a misconstruction of the Times writer. the amendment were cast at the same time." Now The Times says: “But it is asserted that the Al- | why should the court presume that more votes were BANY LAW JOURNAL has given the opinion that there cast for officers than on the constitutional amendis a good deal to be said on both sides of the Su
ments? We should suppose the correct presumppreme Court decision. We are not ignorant of the
tion would be that the electors all voted on every ALBANY LAW JOURNAL's article out here, nor are we question. he fact was in evidence that the amendignorant that it was written before the dissenting
ments received a majority of the votes cast on that opinions of Judges Niblack and Scott were filed, question, and that, in the absence of evidence about and before all the facts in the case were fairly the vote for officers, should control. If the evistated. Judge Biddle found 45 pages of legal cap
dence before the court, or that which it deemed to to say on his side of the question, but yet that will
be before it, showed the fact assumed, there would not make good law or good sense, even re-enforced
be a basis for the conclusion that the court have by the dictum of the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, based drawn, although we believe the conclusion wrong. upon partial information, not to mention the imper-But it appears that the conclusion of the court rests tinent ignorance of the Nation.” It is true that we on a mere guess of a matter which certainly cannot have "given the opinion that there is a good deal come within the ordinary range of judicial notice. to be said on both sides," and we have sustained
This seems to us the weakest reason imaginable for that assertion by showing that the Supreme Courts a wrong decision. To the foregoing suggestion, we of Minnesota and Missouri, and Mr. Justice Brad- | only add that whatever may have been the vote for ley, of the Federal Supreme Court, take the same officers, the returns show that the amendments called view with the Indiana court, while the Supreme out a vote of from 304,000 to 322,000, with majoriCourt of Wisconsin take the opposite view. But ties ranging from 17,000 to 50,000. This affords we protest, first, against the statement that we wrote very small countenance for the impression, which “ before all the facts in the case were fairly stated,” the opinion seems intended to convey, that the and second, against the inference that we approved
amendments were carried on a meager vote. the law of the Indiana decision. The facts on which the decision was based were fairly stated It cannot be denied that the decision has created a when we first wrote, and nothing new has since strong suspicion of unfair conduct on the part of come out. In our first expression of opinion as to the majority of the court. Making due allowance the merits of the decision we said we thought the for the present demand for “political capital," decision wrong, and that the Wisconsin doctrine is
among all parties, there seems to have been at least right, and we have reiterated that expression in re- an extraordinary and undue precipitancy in the promarks on the opinions pro
On the whole nouncing of this opinion. The cause was argued we are inclined to believe that the statement of the for two full days, and the opinion was pronounced Times writer that “we are not ignorant of the Al- in twenty-four hours thereafter. One writer says of BANY LAW JOURNAL's article out here,” is not quite this: “The opinion bears upon its face evidence of accurate. With the alleged back-stairs history of great research and labor in the investigation of authe decision we have nothing to do, and we have thorities and precedents and in twisting and connothing to say about it.
struing them to sustain this most extraordinary de
cision. It fills nearly three and a half columns of a Perhaps we have said all that can be of edifi- large newspaper in solid brevier, and contains six cation on the decision of the Indiana Supreme thousand words. It must be admitted that Judge Court on the constitutional amendments. But we Biddle is a man of wonderful parts; a lightning' would emphasize one criticism which has occurred penman and an indefatigable worker. Never since to us on a re-perusal of the prevailing opinion. The our Supreme Court was organized has such a quancourt say: “This court holds that it requires attity of judicial literature been piled up on paper in least a majority of all the votes cast at the same so short a time, and the like will not probably hapelection to ratify a constitutional amendment.
We pen again in a hundred years. Deducting the hours also hold that as the act of March 10, 1879, is de usually required for needful sleep and refreshment, fective in not providing for the count of the aggre- the task accomplished by the herculean constitutiongate number of votes cast throughout the State on wrecker, Judge Biddle, must ever be regarded as the day of the election, or in not providing some one of the most remarkable mental and physical
Vol. 22.- No. 9.
feats on record." This fact discloses insufficient we cannot contemplate without irritation, and surreflection or a mind made up and formulated be- prise that it should be suggested. The nominaforehand. It contrasts strangely and unpleasantly tion by one party of the present chief judge, Folwith the fact that the dissenting opinions did not ger, since the above was written, is perfectly unexappear for several weeks. We have no hesitation ceptionable, and settles one-half of the suggested in saying, at least, that the court had no moral right difficulty. to put forth such an opinion under such circumstances. It inevitably throws discredit on the court
The American Bar Association met in a large hail, and weakens its conclusions, A country justice, but a small hall would have held them. A boy does who does not decide at once, takes four days for not become a man by getting into his father's trousconsideration. But the point of our animadversion
The attendance was certainly no larger than is this: speaking of the weight and authority of last year, and it is whispered that the membership adjudications, the result shows the impolicy of al
has fallen off very considerably. The old familiar lowing an ultimate court to be constituted wholly faces of Bristow, Phelps, Poland, Potter, Hunt, from one political party. The dissent of two mem
Young, Butler, Bullard, etc., ruled the scene, and bers in this case only strengthens the popular sus
there was the same noticeable preponderance of picion of the other three. If a single judge of the
southern and western, and absence of New York, opposite political party had gone with the majority representatives. Speaking of the portions of the in the case, the accusation of corrupt political bias exercises which we were able to attend, they were could hardly have been made. In the famous scarcely so interesting as those of last year. The Tweed decision in this State the two Republican paper on “Sunday Laws” was an hour's dry statejudges went with the democratic majority, and this
ment of the statutory provisions of the different fact took the sting out of partisan complaints. A
States for the observance of Sunday, with a few court constituted from both political parties will
minutes of sensible suggestion for amelioration of frequently, perhaps generally, divide into political these absurd laws. Much of the essay was inaudistrata, but this is not always the case, and when it ble, but it seemed to us that while the opportunity is, the scandal is less than where there is no differ
was favorable and the subject was a good one, the ence of politics among the judges. Meantime, a
treatment was not exactly suited to the occasion. motion has been made for reargument. If the
Mr. Parker's address on Hamilton and Patterson court should grant it and reverse the present decis
was a brilliantly-written and effectively-delivered ion, they would not be much more fickle than they production, albeit the information about Hamilton have been on several other subjects within our
was already somewhat familiar. But why did Mr. knowledge, notably, as to the intercalary day in
Parker feel bound to treat of the “architects of the leap-year, and indictments for selling “a pint" of
Constitution ?” Is it made incumbent by the laws intoxicating liquor, meaning “less than a quart.”
of the association ? Are there not several topics of
more absorbing present interest ? It strikes us that We are moved to speak now of a matter which way. Last year Mr. Phelps pronounced Marshall will soon be removed into the domain of politics, the architect of the Constitution. This year Jr. and thus be without our jurisdiction, namely, the Parker pronounces Hamilton and Patterson the nominations for chief judge of the Court of Ap- architects. When is this thing to end? If it goes peals. It can hardly be doubted that we express on, we shall incline to the belief that the job was the sentiment of the great body of our profession sub-divided to conciliate a number of rival bidders when we say that the new chief should be selected for the construction of that ancient edifice. Thus from among the members of the court. It would far only three States have been heard from, and we be injudicious and impolitic, as well as a marked shudder when we think of the future constitutional affront to those gentlemen, to go outside for a chief. possibilities. The vivacious Mr. Hunt presented his To choose one who had had no judicial experience report on Legal Education and Admission to the in the Court of Appeals would hardly be defensible. Bar, and the association, after a spirited debate, To select one who had no judicial experience what- nearly all on one side, from a suspicion that the ever would be a still more serious error of judg- first resolution meant more than Mr. Hunt thought ment. There are very few persons in the State, off it meant, and opened the door to permanent practhe bench — perhaps none — who have had any ex- tice for non-residents, and that the scheme of edutended experience as judges of that court, and who cation contemplated in the other resolutions was too are competent in point of age, or who would be ponderous, laid it on the table, as they also did Mr. competent for more than a very few years. There Broadhead's substitute of State law schools whose is plenty of material, of both politics, in the pres- diploma should entitle to admission- - a proposition ent court, from which to make a good chief. Prob- in favor of which a good deal can be said. ably the judges would be satisfied with the promo
much for what we heard. tion of any one of their number, so great is their harmony and so small is their partisanship. To ig- Now as to what we did not hear. Presinore the deserts of these learned, experienced, faith- dent Bristow's address seems to have been weil ful and approved judges, and to put over them a received, and to have been an intelligent and stranger to their decade of counsel and service, complete summary of last year's legislation, much would be an unhandsome and ungracious act, which of which was peculiar and interesting. It must