« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the arbitrators in making an award does not vitiate. Kenloch's case, Fost. 22; Ferrars' case, Raym. 84; Stevens v. Brown. Opinion by Ashe, J.
Rex v. Hayes, 2 Ld. Raym. 1521 ; King v. Scalbert, 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – TAX ON DOGS. - A statute
Leach's Cas. 706; King v. Stevenson, id. 618; Meadempowering town authorities to require the pay. 140; Winsor v. Queen, L. R., 1 Q. B. 289; State v.
ow's case, Fost. 76;.Conway v. Queen, 7 Irish L. R. ment of a tax ou dogs is constitutional. It is not an ad valorem but a specific tax for the privilege of keep-Jones, 6 Halst. 290; Reg. v. Woodfall, 5 Burr. 2661; ing a dog within the town, and if not paid by tho
Arundell's case, 6 Rep. 14a ; Campbell v. Queen, 11 Ad. owner, the dog may be treated as a nuisance and killed.
& El. (N. S.) 835; Gray v. Queen, 11 Cl. & Fin. 490. Property in dogs is recognized by the law and pro- New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, November tected against wanton and needless injury, and a civil Term, 1879. Smith v. State of New Jersey. Opinion action for damages may be maintained by the owner.
by Beasley, C. J. Dodson v. Mock, 4 Dev. & Bat. 146; Perry v. Phipps, FORGERY – INTENT TO DEFRAUD PERSON NAMED 10 Ired. 259. Yet they are not the subject of larceny. MUST BE PROVED - EVIDENCE - FLIGHT NOT EVIDENCE State v. Holder, 81 N. C. 527. The question as to the OF GUILT. — (1) It is necessary to prove, on the trial of right to impose a special tax upon dogs is discussed in one indicted for forgery, an intent to defraud the perBlair v. Ferchand, 100 Mass. 136. Gray, J., says: son named in the indictment as intended to be de“ These statutes have been administered by the courts frauded. This intent may be clearly shown by utteraccording to the fair construction of their terms anding the forged instrument, and if not passed, circumwithout a doubt of their constitutionality." Againstantial evidence. Evidence of statements or admisspeaking of an enactment which required the owner of sions iu reference to the note for the forgery of which a dog to put a collar about its neck, to be constantly the person accused is being tried are admissible, but worn with the name and residence of the owner what he has said of another note said to have been marked thereon, and authorized any person to kill a forged is not admissible to prove the charge on wbich dog without such collar, when it had been decided that he is being tried. Regina v. Cooke, 8 C. & P. 582. For no action would lie for such killing, he adds: “Simi- gery has been defined by law writers as “a false maklar statutes bave been held in other States to be reas. ing; a making malo animo of any written instrument onable and constitutional regulations of police.” Hurd for the purpose of fraud and deceit.” One of the acv. Chesley, 55 N. H. 21. Mowery v. Town of Salisbury. cepted meanings of the word "forge," is to falsely make, Opinion by Smith, C. J.
without any regard to the intent. But the statute reEQUITABLE ACTION -- TO RELIEVE FROM USURIOUS quires an intent to defraud to be shown, and the mere CONTRACT. - The decisions are numerous and uniform making and possession do not necessarily prove an inin this State, as elsewhere, that a debtor seeking the
lent to defraud. Rex v. Shukard, Russ. & Ry. 200. aid of a court will be relieved of the usurious element That is clearly shown when the forged instrument is in his debt, only upon his payment of what is really uttered, or it may be inferred from circumstances. due. “If indeed the borrower," says Ruffin, C. J.,
But mere making and possession is evidence, it is true, * asks' for assistance from equity, it may be refused but it cannot be said, as a legal proposition, that it unless he deal equitably by paying the principal money proves a fraudulent intent. (2) Flight is not evidence loaned and legal interest.” Ballinger v. Edwards, 4 of guilt. It is only evidence tending to prove guilt. Ired. Eq. 449; Beard v. Bingham, 76 N. C. 285. Pur- And an instruction to the jury is erroneous that states nell v. Vaughan. Opinion by Smith, C. J.
that if flight was proved, it must be satisfactorily ex
plained consistently with the innocence of the accused. REMOVAL OF CAUSE — DISTINCTION OF COLOR.- In
Illinois Sup. Ct., May 18, 1880. Fox v. People of Wian action brougbt to annul a deed, etc., the defendants
nois. Opinion by Walker, C. J. applied by petition for a stay of proceedings in the Superior Court in order that the cause might be removed to the Circuit Court of the United States, alleging that
RECENT ENGLISH DECISIONS. the plaintiffs were white persons in whose favor a great partiality existed in that locality, etc., and that the
CONFLICT OF LAW - DOMICILE - FOREIGN DIVORCE. defendants were colored persons against whom there
-Two domiciled English subjects married in England, was existing a great prejudice, etc. Held, that the de- and subsequently the husband went to the United fendants were not entitled to the removal. The act
States and resided in the State of Kansas. He during (Rev. Stat. of the U.S., § 641) applies only to cases
the time of such residence wrote letters to his wife when the laws or judicial practices of a State recognize expressing his intention to return to England and live. distinctions on account of color, race, etc., and not to
After a year's residence in Kansas he presented a peticases of mere local prejudice for which the case may bo removed to another county. State v. Dunlap, 65 N.
tion to the courts of that State for and obtained a C. 491 ; Capehart v. Stewart, 80 id. 101; Slaughter married again. The wife had received no notice of the
divorce on the grouud of his wife's desertion. He then House cases, 16 Wall. 36; Strauder v. West Virginia, petition. Held, that bis domicile at the time of the 21 Alb. L. J. 309. Fitzgerald v. Allman. Opinion by divorce was English, and consequently that the AmeriSmith, C. J.
can divorce was invalid, and that he had committed
bigamy. Quære, whether the domicile of the wife folCRIMINAL LAW.
lows the domicile of the husband so as to compel her FORMER JUDGMENT - WHAT IS NOT SO AS TO BAR
to become subject to the jurisdiction of the tribunals NEW TRIAL.-If a judgment in a criminal case is re
of any country in which the husband may choose to versed on error, in consequence of an error committed acquire a domicile. Probate Div., May 11, 1880. Briggs by the trial judge in charging the jury, the first trial
v. Briggs. Opinion by Hannen, Pres., 42 L. T. Rep. will not be a bar to a retrial on the same indictment. (N. S.) 662. The modern English doctrine seems to be that nothing INTEREST ON MORTGAGE AFTER DUE NOT AT CONbut an existing judgment, either of conviction or ac- TRACT BUT AT USUAL RATE.-
- By an indenture of quittal, so that a plea of autrefois convict or autrefois mortgage reciting an agreement for a loan of ten per acquit can be pleaded, will have that effect. The Con- cent, the mortgagor covenanted for payment of the stitution of this state goes no further than to forbid principal at the expiration of twelve months, and for the retrial of a person who has been acquitted. See the payment of interest in the mean tiine at the rate of Vaux's case, 4 Rep. 44; Reg. v. Houston, 2 Craw. & D. ten per cent per annum; but there was no corenant as 310; Doc. & Stu. C. 52; Rex v. Keite, 1 Ld. Raym. 138; I to payment of interest in the event of the principal or
any portion of it remaining unpaid after the day title, commits an injury to land situated in a foreign named for payment. The principal was not paid at State, jurisdiction should be, and has heretofore been, the expiration of twelve months, but interest at ten rightfully refused. But if, on the other hand, the case per cent was paid for several years. After the death is one of which the courts should, ought, may, or can of the mortgagor a judgment was given for the admin- take cognizance, and no real difficulty or objection existration of his estate, and the mortgagee proved as a ists in the particular case, and no principle of law is creditor for the principal and interest. Held, that in- violated or any constitutional provision broken downterest was recoverable only as damages, and ought to in other words, if the doctrine under consideration is be limited to five per cent (the usual commercial value founded and depends solely and principally for its supof money), that being the amount which a jury would port upon the common-law rules of venue, with all be recommended to give in an action at law for non- their technicalities and formal distinctions, it falls payment of money on a day certain. Ct. of Appeal, with the abrogation of those rules and is no longer susMarch 10, 1880. Goodchap v. Roberts, Opinion by tainable, unless it can be placed upon a foundation of Jessel, M. R., 42 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 666.
solid and substantial reasons. I agree, therefore, with MARITIME LAW - AVERAGE.- Where a vessel has Mr. Cowles that the Code only applies to actions of put into port to repair an injury occasioned by a gen
which the courts can take jurisdiction. The question eral average sacrifice, the expenses of warehousing and then is, whether the courts of this State should, ought, reloading goods necessarily unloaded for the purpose
may, or can take cognizance in any case of an action of repairing the injury, and expenses incurred for for injuries to land situated in a foreign State. If a pilotage and other charges on the vessel leaving the rich man should come over from Jersey City to New port, are the subject of general average. The practice York, and in a careless and negligent manner set fire of British average adjusters for the last seventy years would be a hardship, indeed, but not so great by
to and destroy Mr. Cowles' house, he concedes it dissented from. Judgment of the Queen's Bench Division affirmed. Court referred to Plummer v. Wild- any means if the courts of New Jersey should, conman, 3 M. & S. 482; Power v. Whitmore, 4 id. 141; trary to the law sanctioned by the wisdom of ages, Hallett v. Wigram, 9 C. B. 580, 607; Abb. Ship. (8th compel the rich man to pay for the damages. If the ed.) 478; Benecke Mar. Ins. 191 ; Stev. Av. 22; Bailey's injury was willfully done, the person who committed Av. 119; Hall v. Janson, 4 E. & B. 24; The Copen- it could be extradited to this State and a civil action hagen, 1 C. Rob. 289; Lowndes' Gen. Av. (3d ed.) 107 ; might also be maintained against him here. But where Job v. Langton, 7 E. & B. 779; Walthew v. Marojani,
the injury was negligently committed, Mr. Cowles L. Rep., 5 Ex. 116. Ct. of Appeals, March 24, 1880.
would be without remedy, unless the party should be Atwood v. Sellar. Opinion by Thesiger, L. J., 42 L. T.
sued in this State. I do not presume to say, that jurisRep. (N. S.) 644.
diction of actions of trespass to land should in every
case be entertained, but I do say that, upon principle STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - NOTE PAYABLE THREE
and reason (assuming my own reason to be the standMONTHS AFTER DEMAND. — Payment of a promissory ard) if not upon authority, jurisdiction can be enternote "payable three months after demand”
tained without any real difficulty where the defendant sought to be enforced by its holder. The note was in- cannot set up an apparent title either in himself or in dorsed with payment of two installments of interest,
a third party. I leave it to the courts to determine in but no interest has since been paid during a period of each case as it arises whether the action should be susupward of twenty years. Held, that payment of inter- tained or dismissed. But that there are some cases in est was not evidence that a demand for payment of which jurisdiction may be entertained, seems clear bethe principal had been made so as to make time run yond all doubt. Though it has been repeatedly held against the holder of the pote under the Statute of for many years that jurisdiction of such cases could Limitations, and that the fact that more than twenty not be taken, that is no reason why the courts should years bad elapsed without payment was not a fact not hold the other way. Where the reason of the rule from which the court could presume satisfaction of
ceases, the rule itself should cease to prevail, for the the note in the absence of any demand having been reason is, as it is said, the life of the law. The princimade. Chan. Div., March 23, 1880. Brown v. Ruther-ple of stare decisis is a good one and must be respected ford. Opinion by Hall, V. C., 42 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) and upheld, but it is subject to exceptions, qualifica659.
tions and limitations. It cannot be invoked for the
protection of a person, who, without color of right or CORRESPONDENCE.
authority, commits an injury to property situated in another State or country. Notwithstanding the prin
ciple of stare decisis, great innovations have been made ACTION FOR INJURY TO LAND IN ANOTHER STATE.
upon the common law by the courts, as well as by the To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
Legislature. The fallacy that judges do not make law, As your correspondent, Mr. Cowles, seems to misun- but only declare it as it previously existed, has long derstand the scope and meaning of my article, in which since been exposed. Austin speaks of the “childish I endeavored to show that the common-law rule, that fiction employed by our judges, that judiciary or comthe venue of an action for injuries to land situated in mon law is not made by them, but is a miraculous a foreign State cannot be laid in any county in this something made by nobody, existing, I suppose, from State, has been abrogated by the Code, I avail myself eternity, and merely declared from time to time by the of the opportunity of defining my position and making judges." “ Where the introduction of a new rule myself more clearly understood.
would interfere with interests and expectations which If the case is one of which, upon principles of general have grown out of established ones, it is clearly injurisprudence, upon grounds of public policy, or for cumbent on the judge stare decisis, since it is not in sound and substantial reasons, the courts of this State his power to indemnify the injured parties. But it is should not, ought not, or cannot take cognizance, then much to be regretted that judges of capacity, experiI admit that the doctrine in questiou is not abrogated, ence and weight have not seized every opportunity of since the Code does not confer, or purport to coufer introducing a new rule (a rule beneficial for the future), jurisdiction in such cases, but merely regulates and whenever its introduction would have no such effect. prescribes the place of trial of actions of which the This is the reproach I should be inclined to make courts can or may take cognizance. If there is any in- against Lord Eldon," and Kenyon. herent difficulty in or objection to awarding damages Mr, Cowles says that the rule in question is approved against a person, who, without a shadow or color of or sanctioned by Lord Mansfield and Chief Justice Marshall, upon whose great names I relied for support, let, with a request to notice, which from motives of and from whose opinions I quoted as sustaining my gallantry we cannot pass over. It is entitled: "Naposition. Lord Mansfield held, that as there were no tional Citizen Tract, No. 1. Who planned the Tennesregular courts of judicature in Nova Scotia, and “as see Campaign of 1862? or Anna Ella Carroll vs. Ulysses Capt. Gambier might never go there again," the venue S. Grant: a few generally unknown facts in regard to could be laid in England, notwithstanding the action our Civil War. By Matilda Joslyn Gage.” The subwas local. So, it may be argued, that as Mr. Middle- stance of this pamphlet is that the plan and suggestion ton or Mr. De Courcy might never again go to New of that campaign, executed by Gen. Grant, were made Jersey, jurisdiction should be taken of the case. But by Anna Matilda, then “a young girl of Maryland." he went further and said, that in respect to the ques-Her “bright wit" and "transcendent military genius" tion of jurisdiction, the real and substantial distinc- taught it to her, and she laid it before the war departtion was between actions in rem and actions for dam- ment, and they foully adopted it without giving her ages merely; but he said there was also a formal dis- credit, and Gon. Grant jumped into fame on the exetinction, arising out of the different modes of trial, cution of it. Pity that Anna Matilda was too modbetween actions transitory and local. The doctrine in est to sign her name to the original communication. question arose out of this formal technical distinction, Here is a second Joan d'Arc, and a conclusive answer and not out of a real and substantial distinction. Chief to the Evening Post's standing query whether woman Justice Marshall, after passing a high encomium upon ever invented any thing. Anna Matilda prints firstthe great judicial abilities of Lord Mansfield, admits class recommendations. Chief Justice Chase thanks the soundness of his argument, and says that he him- her for her "great and patriotic services," without self could never perceive any reason for this doctrine, specifying them. Gerritt Smith calls her the country's other than a technical one, but that sitting there upon “wise and faithful and grandly useful servant," withthe Circuit, he could not venture to disregard it. out saying in what employment. Reverdy Johnson
Mr. Cowles says, that the Court of Appeals and the “never heard it doubted" that she was "the first to Supreme Court have settled the law upon this subject. advise the campaign on the Tennessee.” Nor more did This I concede, but the question is, whether those de- we. Ben Wade says her services were so great as to cisions are founded upon principle and sustained by “throw a shadow over the reputation of some of our reason: whether they are founded upon a rock or upon would-be-great men.” No doubt, if she did any thing the sand. I hope Mr. Cowles does not approve of the at all. Cassius M. Clay says her case stands out unique, decision made by the former court in Telegraph for she “towered above all our generals in military Co. v. Middleton; that an injury to telegraph poles genius.” But Ben Wade is her right bower, for she situated in a public highway can only be committed has five testimonials from him. Old Ben never could by an entry upon the “realty," and that an action of resist a woman. As for the rest, we know of no similar trespass quare clausum is the proper form of action – tributes to genius, except in the case of the newspaper when forms of action prevailed. It is too much to ex- press on the “Sweet singer of Michigan." But why is pect of an overburdened court to perform, not only its all this thus? Why, Matilda Ann wants a pension, own duties, but also the duties of counsel.
and Congress is so mean it will not grant it. Now our I may say, with entire truth, and without claiming advice to Matilda Ann is to drop the pension notion extraordinary intelligence, that I knew, or supposed I and to strike for the presidency. We hereby nomiknew, the intent with which Mr. Throop made the nate her for 1884. (N. B. We shall not expect any thing provision for the place of trial of actions relating to more than the attorney-generalship.) real property situated in a foreign State. It was to provide for the place of trial of certain equitable ac- The Ohio Law Journal is a new legal periodical, pubtions relating to real property, of which the Court of lished at Columbus, weekly, in quarto of eight pages. Chancery claimed jurisdiction.
Our neighbor starts out robustly in the matter of legal The question whether an action is local or transitory criticism, announcing that the conclusions reached in is to be determined, not by the common-law rules of Ducker v. State, ante, 182, Davis v. Clinton Water venue, but by the rules prescribed by the Code. Au
Works, ante, 124, and Kincaid v. Hardin County, 21 action for injury to real property (other than waste or
Alb. L. J. 462, "are epochs in the law, to say the least," nuisance) must be tried in the county in which one of and that the first is wrong. We fail to see any thing the parties resided at the commencement of the ac- novel or startling in the last two, and think them right. tion, and is not required to be tried in the county The first is certainly debatable. We wish the new wherein the land is situated; it is therefore a transi- enterprise all the success imaginable, but it must“ tory action; and being an action transitory, it makes light" on the judiciary at the outset. The Amerino difference whether the land is situated in this or in
can Law Review for September contains a leading aranother State, if the case is one of which jurisdiction ticle by William Green, on Stare Decisis, and one on can be taken. Besides, the Code expressly provides, American Civil Code, by George Merrill. — The Virthat where the land is situated without the State, the ginia Law Journal for September has a leading article action must be tried in the county where one of the
on Patrick Henry Aylett. parties reside - that is, if it can. But I lay no stress upon the mere words of the Code. For that would be a strange doctrine to hold, that because no place of
Mr. Lillivick did not think much of the French trial has been designated, no jurisdiction or cognizance langwidge.” We do not entertain a similar contempt can be taken of an action.
for the Italian, and the struggles of our learned and Lord Mansfield's broad and comprehensive mind saw
esteemed contemporary, the Rivista Penale, of Florthe question in its true light; he met it fairly, and
ence, with our language, are entitled to praise. We made a precedent which deserves to be followed.
said, some time ago, “In the New Jersey Legislature F. P. M.
there is a spasm concerning capital punishment." The Rivista translates this thus: “Che nel Corpo Legisla
tivo dello Stato di New Jersey ve grande fervore NOTES.
(spasm.")-- A lawyer in Connecticut has discovered a
new and neat way of avenging himself on an editor wbo E are in the habit of receiving a great many published offensive articles against him. He did not
pamphlets which are not pertinent to the law, cane, cowhide, shoot, stab, challenge, or sue him, but and which we therefore do not notice in these col- he invaded his printing shop and pi'd his forms and umns. But there is now lying before us such.a pamph
The Albany Law Journal
that the constant practice would be improper. The
“To say that a barrister should never ALBANY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880.
appear in a court presided over by his father may be unreasonable. But we most emphatically con
demn the practice of barristers adopting a court in CURRENT TOPICS.
which to practice over which their fathers do pre
side or may preside alone.” And the Journal says: N a supplement to the Pacific Coast Law Journal,
“This appearance is not of sufficient importance to
be taken into account in ordinary cases; but still, if discharge of Dennis Kearney by the Supreme Court
a son attach himself constantly to the court of his of California. He says the cases “universally hold father as a Queen's counsel in equity attaches himthat after judgment in a criminal case of a court of self to a vice-chancellor, it must be admitted that competent jurisdiction, the prisoner cannot be dis
an impropriety is committed.” The difficulty in the charged upon habeas corpus.” This statement must
case is four-fold: first, that a judge will always be be supplemented by the condition, “and having ju- presumed by the populace to lean in favor of his risdiction to render the judgment under some cir
son; second, that the son will get business from the cumstances.” The cumulative sentences in the force of this presumption; third, that the judge Tweed case, and the re-sentence after expiration of will unconsciously be biased in his favor; or fourth, the first sentence in the Lange case, were reviewed
that the judge will do his son's client injustice from upon habeas corpus by the Court of Appeals of this the fear of such bias. However pure, the judge State and the Federal Supreme Court respectively. and the son will always stand in danger. We think 60 N. Y. 559; S. C., 19 Am. Rep. 211; 18 Wall. it would be better for everybody that a judge should 175. In the former the court said, in substance: read Chief Justice Ryan's remarks on nepotism, and " Jurisdiction of the person of the prisoner and of should decline to hear a cause in which his son is the subject-matter are not alone conclusive, but the counsel or attorney. If we were a judge, and had jurisdiction of the court to render the particular
a son who insisted on appearing before us as counjudgment is a proper subject of inquiry; and while sel, we should insist on disappearing. the court or officer cannot, upon return to the writ, go behind the judgment and inquire into alleged errors and irregularities preceding it, the question is It is stated that a good old Irish gentleman lately presented and must be determined whether, upon landed at New York with his five sons, all dressed the whole record, the judgment was warranted by in knee breeches and worsted stockings, being law, and was within the jurisdiction of the court.” driven from their native land by a tyrannical governIn the latter the court observe: “It is no answer to ment which insisted on vaccinating them against say that the court had jurisdiction of the person of their will. There is a statute in this State for the the prisoner, and of the offense, under the statute. vaccination of children as a condition of admission It by no means follows that these facts make valid, to the public schools; but our emigrant had probahowever erroneous it may be, any judgment the bly learned that it is not enforced, or his children court may render in such a case." The American had already graduated. There are also certain proLaw Review, in speaking of the Kearney decision, visions for vaccination at quarantine, but from these oracularly says: “Set it down to the account of an he probably did not stand in danger. The school elective judiciary."
law might well be added to our chapter of dead
letter laws. We are reminded of this topic by the The London Law Times says: “An incident in recent issue of a pamphlet Report of Laws, Provisthe Bristol County Court raises a question which we ions and Methods for securing general Vaccination think is of the utmost moment to the bench and the throughout the Country, by Elisha Harris, M. D., bar. A son of the judge appeared as counsel be- secretary American Public Health Association. This fore him, and the counsel on the other side declined report says: “In the State of New York, a compulto go on with the case, as we gather, on that ground sory statute has for eleven years remained a dead alone. We think the judge was wrong in suggest- letter in the general statutes. It was made applicaing that this step could in any sense be an insult to ble to every school district in the State, and was him.” The Law Journal says, on the same incident: left to execute itself. It has not been applied in a "In the United States the impression has taken so town or district, and has the present autumn (1875) deep a hold that an attempt has actually been made been fanned into life in a single small city, only to to pronounce a father disqualified, on the ground of discover its utter inadequacy, for it reposes in interest, to try a case in which his son is engaged. school-boards the duty of providing for and conSuch views of the situation are, it is needless to say, ducting public and mandatory vaccination, and of altogether without foundation. Judges' sons can assessing the cost thereof upon the tax payers.” A not be ostracised from the bar because their fathers similar old law in Massachusetts was long ago rewere eminent lawyers before them. We do not for pealed, “and the statute in New York requiring the a moment believe that a single case on record has certified and registered vaccination of all pupils in been decided in favor of a particular party because the public schools has remained a dead letter, exthat party happened to be represented by the judge's cept in so far as the sanitary and school authorities, son." But both journals agree in the conclusion acting together in the cities of New York, Brook
VOL. 22.- No. 12.
lyn, Elmira, and Rochester, have secured a partial represents the bulk of the civil causes, and it incompliance with the statute." The Scotch, it cludes 318 equity actions, 115 admiralty actions, seems, are the most vaccinated of any people, being and 575 actions sent from the high court of justice. perhaps thereto incited by their traditional cutane- The city of New York alone supplies about that ous prompting. Dr. Harris says “the cities of New number of causes annually, in the Supreme, SupeYork and Providence vie with each other in the ef- rior, Common Pleas, and Marine Court. We wish fort to secure the vaccination of all their young that some of our London contemporaries would supchildren,” but Providence has the advantage of a ply us with statistics showing the number of judiperfect registration of births, obtained by canvass- cial officers and the amount of litigated business in ers, and gives gratuitous vaccination every Saturday. England, and we would then take pains to collect As to compulsion, he observes: “If vaccination is the like here. an unqualified blessing only when skillfully administered; if prejudice and resistance against it are the
The Albany Times says:
" The attention of Gov. outcome of faultiness and indiscretion in the appli- Cornell has been called to the case of Harriet Mercation of it; and if the universal and almost unex
rihew, recently sentenced to Sing Sing prison for ceptional vaccination of the entire population in any
life for poisoning her husband in Lewis county. On State or city can be secured by means of special ex
being taken to Sing Sing she was refused admitpertness and tact of skillful medical and sanitary tance, no female prisoners having been received officers, then a resort to legal prosecutions certainly there since the passage of the law of 1877 directing should be only a dernier resort for overcoming any
the removal of all female prisoners from that prison particular wanton resistance to the law. Experi- to a penitentiary. The woman was taken back to ence warrants the conclusion that excepting at the
the Lewis county jail, where she now is. The questimes when small-pox is invading a community, and
tion raised is as to how she can be resentenced; in the rare instances of wanton recklessness, actual
whether the court can reconvene itself, or whether compulsion by legal proceedings, by penalties, etc.,
the Governor must issue a proclamation reconvening may not be expedient, and that even the mandatory it. The Governor bas referred the matter to the language of compulsion is unnecessary; for in the attorney-general and the judges .passing the senfew persons, and the extremely few parents, who ob- tence, for their opinion.” It would seem that all stinately resist and scorn the offer of vaccination that is necessary is to send the prisoner to another for themselves or their families, such abnormal and prison where they will hospitably receive her. The vicious obstinacy is made angrily uncontrollable by specification of a particular prison is not necessary the bare assertion of force and authority.”
to a valid sentence, at common law or under our statutes. This is settled in Weed v. People, 31 N. Y.
465. “The law determines the prison, and the "A writer for the New York Graphic publishes a
court have no authority to incarcerate the prisoner computation indicating American expenditure for
in any other.” The specification of Sing Sing judicial services to be, in the aggregate, larger than prison was therefore mere surplusage, and can be that of gland. Thirty-four judges discharge the disregarded, and the statutes will determine where law business of England and Wales, at an aggregate the lady should go. There is no need of a new sencost of less than $1,000,000, the population served tence. being about 25,000,000; while New York State alone employs over 450 judicial officers, at a com- The courts have enjoined a fiend in Pennsylvania, pensation of more than $1,000,000, to administer who proposed to introduce “memories of the Pijustice'to a population of 5,000,000 people. Ex- rates of Penzance," into the repertory of the domespense per capita in the British kingdom less than tic piano and the itinerant hand organ. The origifour cents; in New York, over twenty-five cents. nal “Pirates” is in manuscript, not published and Justice costing five times more in free New York not copyrighted, and the heartless man in question than in monarchical England.” Nothing can be published snatches of it, from recollection of the more unfair than this statement. It is not true that performances, adding perpetrations of his own, all "34 judges discharge the law business of England under the above title. His counsel argued: “The and Wales.” We do not know how many judicial airs of the opera in question have been given to the officers there are, but the number is vastly greater ears of large audiences, so that they could go home than that. That number represents only the supe- and play them over on the piano or the flute; thus rior judges. We dare hazard the conjecture, that the airs have become public property. Now the reckoning on the above principle of embracing author of this publication has gone home, and rejudges of local courts in both countries, England calling only the melody, the upper notes of the has many times that number. We have recently score, has arranged a piano accompaniment for it stated our belief that the litigation of New York is which is entirely original. It has been held that to greater than that of England. In an article enti- produce a piece of music for the piano from an opera tled The Decline of Circuit Life, in the current num- score is an original work. The only question, thereber of the Law Magazine and Review, we find some fore, is, had the author of this work, having heard statistics, from which we learn that the county the airs, the right to use them in this way? This courts in England, during the year ending Decem- opera not being copyrighted, the property of the ber, 1877, tried 10,232 causes. This undoubtedly | author in it is simply the author's right at common