« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
and mortgaged the samo to L. to secure a debt owed of life unlawfully, no such criminal liability will attach by her husband to him. L. foreclosed the mortgage merely from being a party to such an agreement. 1 and at the sale the land was purchased by B. for the Bish. Crim. L. (6th ed.) $ 641; Hawkins' P. C., book busband, with his money. Thereafter B. conveyed 2, chap. 29, SS 19, 20, 21; Foster, 369, 370; Regina v. the same to the husband, who afterward, in considera- Franz, 2 F. & F. 580; Regina v. Horsey, 3 id. 278; tion of an old debt, conveyed the same to defendant. Regina v. Luck, id. 443; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. 655, 673; The deed giving the wife title, the mortgage, and all Regina v. Tyler, 8 C. & P. 616; Regina v. Lee et al., the subsequent couveyances, were on record. Held, F. & F. 63; Regina v. Turner et al., 4 id. 339; Rex v. that the husband, in taking title under the foreclosure Hawkins, 3 C. & P. 392; Watts v. The State, 5 W. Va. sale, took in trust for his wife, and that defendant 532; Rex v. IIowell, 9 C. & P. 437. Illinois Sup. Ct., took title subject to such trust. The wife in mort- Sept. 22, 1880. Lamb v. People of Illinois. Opinion by gaging her separate property to secure the payment of Mulkey, J. her husband's debt to L., became, as between herself
LARCENY – TO BE PRINCIPAL MUST BE CONCERNED and husband, a surety only. Spear v. Ward, 20 Cal.
IN ORIGINAL TAKING.– A person cannot be a principal 674; Loomis v. Wheelwright, 3 Sandt. Ch. 155: Bank in a theft unless he is concerned in the original taking. of Albion v. Burns 46 N. Y. 170; 1 Bish. on Mar.
It is often said that theft is a continuous offense, but Wom. 604. The husband, in purchasing through B. at cases wherein this doctrine is announced, upon exthe foreclosure sale, was but paying his owu debt; and amination, are generally found to be those in which a he took and thereafter held the title to the prop- theft is perpetrated in one county, State or country, erty in trust for plaintiff. Fitch v. Cotheal, 2 Sandf.
and the stolen property is then carried by him into anCh. 29. In 1 Story's Eg. Jur., $ 403, it is said: “In
other. In accordance with established principles at America it is uniformly held that the registration of a
common law, which the statutes of all our States have conveyance operates as constructive notice to all
embodied, it is universally held that the thief may be subsequent purchasers of any estate, legal or equitable, prosecuted either in the locality of the original capin the same property. To the same effect are the
tion or in that to which the property has been carried, statutory provisions. Tho record was at least suffi
upon the principle that the legal possession of the true cient to put defendant upon inquiry; and he was
owner continues, notwithstanding the larceny, during bound, at his peril, to inform himself as to the facts.
each moment of the fraudulent possession of the thief, Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. 37: Neison v. Allen, 1 Yerg.
and tho offense is continuous so long as the property is 366; Bank of Albion v. Burns, 46 N. Y. 170. Hassey in course of transportation or in the actual possession v. Wilke. Opinion by Ross, J.
of tho thief. It does not follow, inevitably, that any (Decided Aug. 18, 1880. )
person who joins in the enterprise, after tho original
caption is perfected, is necessarily a principal in such CRIMINAL LAW.
original caption. The better doctrine seems to be, that in order to bring the latter within the category of a
principal he must have been concerned in the original CONSPIRACY – TO MAKE LIABLE, PARTY MUST CON
theft. Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 10 Mass. 153. He SENT TO CRIMINAL ACT — NO IMPLIED ASSENT - UN
need not be actually present at the taking, if the act LAWFUL ACT NOT OF DANGEROUS CHARACTER.— It may
was committed in pursuanco of a common intent and be stated, as a general proposition, that no one can be
a previously-formed design, in which his mind united properly convicted of a crimo to the commission of
and concurred with that of the actual taker. Welsh which he has never expressly or impliedly given his
v. Stato, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 413; Scales v. State, 7 id. 361. assent. Where the accused was present and coinmitted the crime with his own hands, or aided and abetted
Texas Ct. of Appeals, June 16, 1880. Cohea v. State of
Texas. Opinion by Clark, J. another in its commission, he will be conceded as haying expressly assented thereto. So, where he has en- PERJURY — EVIDENCE — TESTIMONY OF TWO WITtered into a conspiracy with others to commit a felony, NESSES NECESSARY TO CONVICT.- It is a general rule or other offense, under such circumstances as willi that the testimony of a single witness to the falsity of when tested by experience, probably result in the un- the matter on which the perjury is assigned is insufilawful taking of human life, he will be presumed to cient to convict on a charge of perjury. Two witnesses have understood the consequences which might rea- are not essentially requisite, for if any material circum. sonably have been expected to follow from carrying stance be proved by other witnesses in confirmation of into effect the purpose of the unlawful combination, the witness who gives the direct testimony of perjury, and also to bave ussented to the doing of whatever it may turn the scale, and warrant a conriction. would reasonably or probably be necessary to aocom- “When there are several assignments of perjury, it plish the objects of the conspiracy, even to the taking does not seem clearly settled whether, in addition to of life. But further than this the law does not go. If the testimony of a single witness, thero must be corthe accused in such case has not expressly assented to roborative proof with respect to each, but the better the commission of the crime which happened to be the opinion is that such proof is necessary, and that, too, result of attempting to carry into effect the purpose of although all the perjuries were committed at one time tho conspiracy, and the unlawful enterprise was not of and place." 1 Greenl. Ev., 8 257 a. Thus A, in an affidasuch character as would probably involve the necessity vit, stated that he had paid all the debts proved under of taking life in carrying it into execution, then there his bankruptcy except two. On an indictment for percan be no implied assent, and consequently no criminal jury on this atidavit, one of the assignments was that liability for the unexpected result. If the unlawful act A had not paid all the debts proven except two, and agreed to be done is dangerous or homicidal in its charac- another that certain other creditors were not paid in ter, or if its accomplishment will necessarily or probably full. In support of the indictment several creditors require the use of force and violence which may result were called, who each proved the non-payment of his in the taking of life unlawfully, every party to such own debt. Held, that this was not sufficient to war. agreement will be held criminally liable for whatever rant conviction, and that as to the non-payment of any of his co-conspirators may do in furtherance of the each debt, it was necessary to have the testimony of common design, whether he is present or not. But two wituesses, or of one witness and some circumstance where the unlawful act agreed to be done is not of a to supply the place of a second witness. Regina r. dangerous or homicidal character, and its accomplish- Parker, 1 c. & M. 639; 41 E. C. & E. R. 346. See 2 ment does not necessarily or probably require the use Russ. on Cr. 654. The weight of authority and the of force and violonce which may result in the taking | general rule require that where an indiotment contains sereral assignments of perjury, in order to convict on referred to: Harris v. Wall, 1 Ex. 122; Rowe v. Hopany one there must be either two witnesses or ono wit- wood, L. R., 4 Q. B. 1; DeThoren v. Att’y-Gen., 1 ness and corroborative evidence to negative the truth App. Cas. 686. Com. Pleas Div., Juno 23, 1880. Ditcham of the matter in such assignment. Pennsylvania Sup. v. Worrall, L. R., 5 C. P. D. 410. Ct., Jan., 1880. Williams v. Commonwealth of Penn
INJUNCTION - PUBLICATION INJURIOUS TO TRADE.sylvania. Opinion by Trunkey, J.
It is not necessary to prove actual damage in an action
to restrain the issue of a circular which is calculated RECENT ENGLISH DECISIONS.
to do serious injury to the plaintiff's business. Ch.
Div., May 7, 1880. Thomas v. Williams. Opinion by CONTRACT — REPRESENTATIONS INFLUENCING CON
Fry, J., 43 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 91. DUCT - MUTUALITY - INTEREST IN LANDS-STATUTE OF FRAUDS, $ 4- EXECUTED CONSIDERATION.-A rep- SALE-OF PERSONAL PROPERTY-CONDITIONAL SALE resentation, which influences the conduct of a person OF A HORSE DELIVERED - DEATH OF HORSE BEFORE to whom it is made, is not legally enforceable against SALE BECAME ABSOLUTE.-A horso was sold by the the person who makes it unless it operates either as a plaintiff to the defendant upon condition that it should contract or as an estoppel. The plaintiff, as heir-at- be taken away by the defendant and tried by him for law of an intestate, claimed the title deeds of the in- eight days, and returned at tho end of eight days if testate's farm, of which the defendant had taken the defendant did not think it suitable for his purposes. possession on his death. The defendant counter-claimed The horse died on the third day after it was placed in a declaration that she was entitled to a life estate in the defendant's stable, without fault of either party. the farm, and to retain the title deeds for her life.
Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain an action The jury found that the defendant was induced to for the price, as for goods sold and delivered. Com. serve the intestate as his housekeeper without wages
Pl. Div., March 13, 1880. Elphick v. Barnes. Opinion for many years, and to give up other prospects of by Denman, J. L. R., 5 C. P. D. 321. establishment in life, by his promise to make a will leaving her a life estate in his farm, if, aud when, it
CORRESPONDENCE. became his property. Held, first, that the finding,
Is It A JOKE? taken with the facts, amounted to a finding that there | Editor of the Albany Law Journal was a contract to the abovo effect between the intestato
Mr. William Eggleston, in the Preface of his work and the defendant, and that such a contract being based on a good consideration (whether it could or
on Damages, just published, says: “In submitting could not have been euforced by the intestate) was
this work to the profession, I feel great anxiety as to binding on him and his estate; and secondly, that all the outrages ever perpetrated upon the patient law
its reception by the public.” And well he may, for of since the contract bad been completely performed on the defendant's part, section 4 of the statute of frauds book-buying public, this is the acme in what is known did not apply; and that the defendant was entitled to
as padding. During the recent presidential compaign the declaratior asked in the counter-claim. Cases
there appeared a neat littlo publication comprising
somo 37 sheets of puro white paper, entitled, “Life referred to: Packard v. Sears, 6 A. & E. 469; Ham
and Public Services of Winfield Scott Hancock. Every mersley y. De Biel, 12 Cl. & Fin. 45; Loffus v. Mayo, 3 Giff. 592; Luders v. Anstey, 4 Ves. 501; Prole v. Soady, lawyer who received a copy of said book was highly 2 Giff. 1; Coles v. Pilkington, L. R., 19 Eq. 574; Cover- amused, and pronounced it a huge joke. Little did
the publishers of that unique book dream, however, dale v. Eastwood, L. R., 15 Eq. 21; Jorden v. Money, 5 H. L. C. 185; Maunsell v. Hedges, 4 H. L. C. 1039; down and slavishly followed by future generations, and
that they wero establishing a precedent to be handed Caton v. Caton, L. R., 2 H. L. 127 ; Dashwood v.
I seriously question, Mr. Editor, whether there will be Jermyn, 12 Ch. D. 776. Exch. Div., June 2, 1880.
found among the bench and bar of this State, a single Alderson v. Maddison. Opinion by Stepheu, J. L. R.,
legal-bibliomaniac willing to vote tho 58 pages of plain 5 Ex. D. 293.
white paper, found in Mr. Eggleston's work, any thing INFANT – PROMISE TO MARRY - RATIFICATION OR save an unmitigated outrage upon the legal profession. FRESH PROMISE.-In July, 1875, the plaintiff and de
Yours, etc., fendant (both being then under the age of twenty-one)
WILLIAM J. C. BERRY, mutually agreed to marry one another. The engage
Librarian N. Y. Bar Association. ment continued without any definite understanding as to when the marriage was to take place, uutil March,
FORM OF BALLOTS. 1879, wben (both having attained the age of twenty- | Editor of the Albany Law Journal : one) the defendant asked the plaintiff, in the presence I note what you say in last JOURNAL about the electof her father, to fix the wedding-day. She fixed it for oral ballot. It would be well for some level-headed the 5th of June, to which the defendant assented, but legislator to revise the whole legislation about ballots, ultimately be broke his promise. In an action for this for it is now muddled. The Revised Statutes (1 R. S. breach of proinise, in which it was agreed that the [5th ed.) 427, 8 9), required ballots to be "endorsed." damages should be assessed, subject to the opinion of The amendment, Laws 1880, chapter 553, section 1, rethe court as to whether or not that which took place quires them to be “indorsed." 1 Revised Statutes in March, 1879, was evidence from which the jury (5th ed.), 429, $ 15, requires ballots for electors to be might and ought to infer a fresh promise to marry after “indorsed. Chapter 366 of 1880, section 2, says: the defendant had attained twenty-one, within section · Every ballot shall have a caption (as provided by 2 of the Infants' Relief Act, 1874 (37 and 38 Vict., ch. 62), law).” This implies that some previous law required or a mere ratification of the original void promise. a "caption.” What law? That is a conundrum, which Held, by Denman and Lindley, JJ., that what took the draughtsman of that act should answer. No one place in March, 1879, when the wedding-day was fixed, else can! I believe the above refers to all the legislawas a fresh promise made after the defendant came of tion about the form of ballots, except chapter 513, age, and upon a good consideration. By Lord Cole-Laws of 1855, relating to the city of New York, which ridge, C. J., that it was a mere ratification of the provides that the ballot for electors shall be “tho same original promise made by the defendant during his as now prescribed by law,” and when folded shall be minority, and not a binding promise within the statute. | indorsed or show on the outside tho words "presiCoxhead v. Mullis, 8 C. P. D. 433, and Northcott v. dent," eto., and the same words “when folded, shall Doughty, 4 C. P. D. 435, commented upon. Cases | be indorsed or show on the outside," oto., are used
TAN bolloc. ing decisions were handed down Tuesday,
with regard to the “State" and other ballots. This is
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. the only legislation about folding. There is no statute, except this, “of a local nature," which directs a folding so as to show the nature of a ballot, but the
HE word is “endorsed” or “indorsed."
Nov. 16, 1880 OGDENSBURG, N. Y., Nov. 6, 1880.
Judgment affirmed with costs - Smith v. Holbrook ;
Green v. The Homestead Fire Insurance Company. JUDICIAL NEPOTISM.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
abide event-Morton v. Sweet: Van Cott v. Van Brunt. The trial justice alluded to by your correspondent Judgment of General Term reversed and that of “Lawyer" in the Law JOURNAL of October 20, who Special Term affirmed, with leavo to defendant to anofficiates as constable to his own court, is certainly not swer on payment of costs — Wheeler v. Connecticut acting according to the doctrines of tho English com- Mutual Life Insurance Company. - Judgment affirmed mon law.
and judgment absolute for respondent on stipulation In Bacon's Abridgment it is remarked that “offices
with costs — Webb v. Buckelew. Order affirmed are said to be incompatible and inconsistent so as to be with costs - Coit v. Campbell, Eaton v. Wells. -Orexecuted by the same person, when from the multi- der affirmed without costs – Van Cott v. Van Cott.plicity of business in them they cannot be executed Order of General Term reversed, and judgment with caro and ability, or when they being subordinate Special Term affirmed with costs – Hier v. Abrahams. and interfering with each other it induces a presump- -Appeal dismissed with costs-Devlin v. The Mayor; tion, they cannot be executed with impartiality and
Grant v. Griswold, Douglas v. Haberstro; Eldridge v. honesty. * * So if a forester by patent for his N. Y. & Brighton Beach R. R. Co.; Clark v. Lourie.life is made justice in eyre of the same forest pro haec Appeal dismissed without costs - People ex rel. Geer v. vice, the forestership is become void; for these offices are
Common Council of Troy.- - Motion denied without incompatible because the forester is under the correc- costs - In re Guardian of Hubbard.. Motion denied tion of the justices in eyre and he cannot judge him- with $10 costs - Tuthill v. Morris; People eux rel. Smith self.
A coroner made sheriff ceases to be v. Board of Police Commissioners of New York.coroner, so a parson made a bishop."
Motion granted with $10 costs - Argall v. Jacobs. In a note to tbis portion of the text, a case is mentioned where upon a writ of error the error assigned
IN COURT OF APPEALS, Nov. 16, 1880. was that the venire facias was to two bailiffs, and that the court was held before the mayor and these two
It is ordered, That the Court take a recess from Fri. bailiffs, so that the bailiffs being judges of the court day, the 19th inst., until Monday, the 29th inst., at could not be officers; but it is stated that the appellate 10 o'clock A. M., at the old Capitol iu tho ('ity of "court conceived it might be good by custom and not
Albany, then to proceed with tho call of the preseut error; for the judges are not the bailiffs only, but the Calendar.
E. O. PERRIN, Clerk. mayor and bailiffs.” It is noted that this case, arising on a writ of error, does not directly meet the question. See Bacon's Abridgment, Offices and Officers. (k.)
NOTES. Lord Coke, in his fourth institute, remarks that it would be well were two offices never to be held by the THE New Zealand Jurist, about whose fate we anasame person.
iously inquired some time ago, has been disconIn this opinion Mr. James Ryan of this city does not tinued. Its place is supplied by Ollivier, Bell & Fitzappear to bave concurred. He having been appointed gerald's Reports of Cases in the Court of Appeal and to and accepted the office of deputy clerk of the court Supreme Court, of which bave the first two of special sessious for the city and county of New monthly parts. These reports are well executed. York, subsequently, while being such clerk, accepted | Tbo Massachusetts Law Reporter bas been united with aud entered upon the performance of tho duties of the tho Banker and Tradesman, under tho namo of the somewhat incongruous office of member of tho State Bunker and Tradesman and Massachusetts Law ReLegislature.
porter. We have found tho Reporter very timely and Ou an application for a mandamus to compel pay- useful. ment to him of his salary as clerk which had accrued while he was holding office as a legislator, Folger, J., iv tho Court of Appeals, observes that “physical im
The administration of justice in 'this State is almost
as much a farco in many cases as the long-drawu conpossibility is not the incompatibility of tho common
test known in history as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, and law, which existing, one office is ipso facto vacated by accepting another. Incompatibility between two offices chinery of the Circumlocution office. It is not the
tho machinery of courts not entirely uuliko the mais au inconsistency in the functious of the two; as
fault of the judges. They do not find any pleasure in judge and clerk of the same court - officer who pre
passing upon motions without point, and demurrers sents bis personal account subject to audit, and officer whose duty it is to audit it.
without foundation, or in wading through oceans of Where one office is
lawless slush in bad spelling, worse grammar, and the not subordinate to the other, nor the relations of the one to the other such as aro inconsistent and repug
worst possible substitute for logic --styled “briefs" by
their creators. Judges submit to these things, as do nant, there is not that incompatibility from which tho law declares that the acceptance of the one is the vaca
attorneys and litigants who wish to terminate their tion of the other.” People et rel. Ryan v. Green, 58
litigation, simply because they cannot help it. The law N. Y. 304; see, also, Rex v. Butemun, 2 T. R. 777 ;
seems to givo to parties the power to delay justice Milward v. Thatcher, id. 81.
until litigants dio of despair, and fraud goes unwhipped The case in 58 N. Y. may perhaps be thought to and crime unpunished by reason of that delay; and have gone very far in maintaining the common law judges, of themselves, are powerless to correct the validity of the holding, by the same person, of offices
evil. Upon tho average, fivo years' time is required to physically incompatible. But it fully maintains the fuvalidity of holding offices, the functions of which are
dispose of an ordinary case, if the parties contest it inconsistent.
from the Common Pleas to the Supreme Court: and in This trial justice has been too eager in the pursuit the event of a reversal and remanding as much more of official honors.
time may elapse before the final adjudication. – Ohio NEW YORK, November 8, 1880.
C. W. S. Law Journal.
The Albany Law Journal.
evidence is to exclude no one, who believes in and understands the sanctions of an oath, for any reason whatever. See Alb. L. J., passim.
ALBANY, NOVEMBER 27, 1880.
Third: In regard to the reformation of criminals.
On this point he says: “In addition to the penal THE address of President Bristow, at the late statutes which have been passed, some States have
meeting of the American Bar Association, of endeavored to drive out and destroy the devil which we have given an abstract, and which is now who, according to the old form of indictment, inbefore us in full, is an excellent production. In stigates all offenders against the law to the commisthree points, especially, we have the pleasure of
sion of crime — by the enactment of laws looking agreeing most heartily with the president. First,
to the reformation of criminals. Iowa, Massachuin regard to “the pernicious practice of special leg- setts, and Wisconsin, have established rules providislation.” On this point he remarks: “It was
ing for the diminution of the terms of imprisonment hardly befitting the dignity of the Legislature of a
of convicts in case of good behavior. These rules sovereign State to occupy its time with the act, to
enable the prisoner to determine precisely at what be found in the last installment of the laws of Vir- date his term will expire in case his conduct gives ginia, which empowers the principal of Turkey
satisfaction to the keeper of the prison, and where Cove High School, situated at Turkey Cove, in the
the term is a long one, a very considerable deduccounty of Lee,
to confer such certi
tion is made. Such rules seem well calculated to ficates of proficiency and distinction as he may secure order, but it would be expecting too much of think proper to promote the cause of education.' them perhaps to anticipate any real change of Nor was it exactly fair to the legal profession for heart' among prisoners as a consequence of their the Legislature of South Carolina to pass two spe
adoption. They undoubtedly create a conviction cial acts admitting John Smith and Thomas Jones that 'honesty is the best policy,' while in jail, but to the bar, although one was under twenty-one years
do little to make it plain that the same rule holds of age, and the other had not completed the pre
outside the prison walls. The Massachusetts Legisscribed two years' course of study.
lature has embodied a novel idea in a statute providing for the appointment of probation officers,'
so called. It is made the duty of these officers to Second: In regard to the testimony of husband examine into the cases of persons arrested for crime, and wife. On this point he observes: “In New and determine whether they may reasonably be exYork, husband and wife are in general competent pected to reform without punishment. If they so witnesses for or against each other in civil causes. recommend, the court may order the prisoner to be Certain exceptions exist with regard to confidential released on probation upon such terms as it may communications and actions of crim. con. "Whether deem just. The probation officers may also inquire the general rule should apply to actions founded into the cases of convicted prisoners, if the term of upon allegations of adultery is a matter as to which imprisonment, which they have still to undergo, the Legislature has displayed considerable indecis- does not exceed six months, and recommend their ion, having changed its mind twice during the last release on probation. If the court so directs, or in two years. Up to 1879, the rule as to such actions case of the Superior Court, the district attorney and was that husband and wife were not competent wit- the county commissioner concur in the recommendanesses to establish any fact, except the fact of mar- tion, the prisoner is to be released, but on probariage. In 1879 this restriction was removed, and tion only, and may be rearrested and confined for husband and wife became competent witnesses in the remainder of his term. If the duties of these actions founded upon allegations of adultery to the officers are wisely performed, it seems that some same extent as in other actions, but in 1880 the good may be accomplished. No doubt it often haporiginal rule was again adopted. However great pens that a man of average morality who desires to may be the probability of collusion between hus- do right, and for a long time has succeeded as well band and wife in such an action, that is a considera- as most men, takes at last a single false step in a tion, it seems to me, which should affect the weight moment of dire temptation, and cases of sincere reof the evidence rather than its admissibility. A pentance may exist among criminals and convicts. provision that such testimony should be insufficient General rules which create rewards for good beunless corroborated by other evidence, might be havior are not likely to defeat the ends of criminal salutary, but to exclude it altogether, because it statutes, and a sound discretion may well be exermay mislead, shuts out light which might otherwise cised in favor of the most meritorious of the crimibe thrown upon the issues, and is contrary to the nal classes, to save them from utter and hopeless spirit of the modern law of evidence. The English degradation injurious to themselves and useless to law expressly declares that in proceedings instituted the State.” The Massachusetts system is, we unin consequence of adultery the parties and their derstand, substantially like the English “ ticket of husbands and wives shall be competent witnesses leave” system, and is also like a pardon on condi(32 and 33 Vict., ch. 68, § 3).” The true theory of | tion of good behavior.
Vol. 22.— No. 22.
This should be the duty IN towing decision on the subject of rewards: A's
It is probable that the amendment to the Consti- poses is not taken away or impaired. This leaves tution, providing that any judge of the Supreme these corporations subject, as in former times, to Court, or of the Court of Appeals, who shall be re- taxation on their real estate, which was plainly intired from office at the age of seventy, as is now tended, subject to the new State tax on capital required by the State Constitution, but who shall stock and receipts, and also subject to assessment, have served at least ten years on the bench, shall be as before, on stock and personal property so far as entitled to his full compensation during the re- local purposes are concerned. They certainly have mainder of the term for which he was elected, has not calculated upon this, even if the joint special been carried. This amendment is good so far as it committee which muddled the tax laws last winter goes, but it does not go far enough. It is but fair intended it.” Our legislative committees are to the judges who have grown old in the public ally placed in a quandary between their desire to find service, and have arrived at an age when they are some one to pay the public burdens, and to exempt disqualified from practice or at a disadvantage in it, nearly everybody, or at least those best able, from to grant them pensions for life to some amount, and this necessary duty. It reminds us of the Irish we think to the amount of their salary annually. If gentleman, who, sitting for his portrait, directed it is conceded that a man ceases to be fit for the ju- the artist to paint his servant in the picture, “not dicial office at 70, it must also be conceded that he in plain sight, but just outside, within aisy call." then ceases to be fit for the active duties of the bar. The State should either pension its judges for life,
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn has closed his long or extend the judicial tenure to the age of 75, with
and useful life. He died, very suddenly and unexthe present provision for a pension of four years' pectedly, on the 20th inst., at the age of 78, after a salary. Some of the newspapers are already grum- judicial service of 24 years. We shall await our bling about the expense. This is the merest dema
London exchanges to make up an account of the gogism. The State squanders, at the behest of
life and public services of this distinguished man. either political party, ten times more money every year than any probable pension list would aggre
NOTES OF CASES. gate. A State which can spend twenty millions for a capitol, and not feel it, can afford to do its aged
foljudicial servants justice. of the State, and not the mere pleasure of private
servant had embezzled 37,000 florins and had fled. charity, as has been suggested with regard to the proposed pension of ex-presidents.
A went to the director of police at Praguc and formally declared before him that he would give ten per
cent of the sum found with his servant on his arrest. We are glad to note that our State Bar Associa- The police authorities published this offer of reward tion have taken a new departure in the matter of in the newspapers. A few days thereafter, B delivthe presidency. The election of Mr. Sherman S.
ered A's servant into the hands of the police. Rogers, of Buffalo, will give unanimous satisfaction.
17,372 florins were found on his person. refusing No fitter gentleman could have been selected, and
to pay B ten per cent of this sum, B brought suit his geographical location makes the appointment a
for 1,737 florins. The trial court nonsuited him, it wise The out-going president, ex-Judge appearing that the servant had voluntarily come to Hand, has graced the office by profound legal at
B and given himself up to him, and that then B tainments and ripe scholarship in literature, and had merely accompanied the servant to the police received the extraordinary compliment of a re-elec- station. B appealed, and the Bohemian Supreme tion. The association has now had presidents from Court, and on A's further appeal, the Imperial ApNew York city, Albany, and Buffalo, and this geo-pellate Court, both decided that B was entitled to graphical distribution should be kept up and ex- the reward. They held that A was only interested tended. Nothing tends to kill an organization in the success consequent upon his offer of reward; more surely than rotation in office which simply the manner and mode of effecting it must be imma"rotates the old officers in again. The change of terial to him. He has no right to scrutinize the acthe time of annual meeting from November to Seption of B, his intent or meritoriousness. Because tember will doubtless be an improvement, and will the servant was arrested, and a part of the money increase the attendance and the interest.
restored to A, he must pay the promised reward to
the person who brought this about. Without B, The recent decision of Judge Gilbert, of the the servant might have changed his mind, concealed Second Department, in regard to the taxation of himself and wasted the money. For a succinct corporations, will probably surprise the public, the treatment of the subject of rewards, see note, 26 corporations, and the committee which framed the Am. Rep. 5. act of 1880. The New York Times says: “He holds that the exemption from assessment of the Judge Barrows, of the Maine Supreme Court, capital stock and personal property of certain cor- writes us as follows: “I am induced to send you porations upon which the special State tax is levied the inclosed opinion by seeing in the last number applies only to taxation for State purposes, and that of the Law JOURNAL (p. 397), Iowa Sup. Court abauthority to assess and collect taxes for local pur- | stract, that Judge Day, while his opinion in the