« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Troy & Boston R. R. Co., 20 Wall. 117, it was held that doubt that the negligence of intestate contributed to
A policy of insurance on the life of F. contained this
provision, that "it shall not take effect until the adMARITIME LAW - JURISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY AS
vance premium thereon shall have been paid during TO CREW OF FOREIGN VESSEL. — The nationality of a
the lifetime of the person when life is thereby inforeign vessel, and not that of the crew, should regu- sured.” F. applied for the policy and it was issued late the action of a court of admiralty in assuming and left at F.'s place of business by an agent of the. jurisdiction over a controversy between the officers company, who, by letter, requested the payment of the and seamen of such vessel. And in the investigation premium if correct and satisfactory. The agent reof a case where seamen asked to be discharged from peated the request by letter a few weeks later. This further service on a Swedish ship and for tho payment letter was received by the sister of F. and opened by of wages, held, that all the crew of the ship must be her, he being ill of a sickness whereof he died. The deemed Swedish subjects, notwithstanding it appeared sister, without his direction or knowledge, paid the that some of them were in fact citizens of other na
premium and F. died without knowledge of the paytionalities. The Nina, L. R., 2 P. C. 39. U. S. Dist.
ment. Held, that the policy was not binding upon the Ct., Maine, Sept. 13, 1880. The Amalia. Opinion by insurance company. No contract of insurance existed Fox, D. J.
between the parties at the time of the death of F. The
possession of the policy, without a waiver on the part MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAĻ of the company of the condition upon the performCOURT ABSTRACT.
ance of which it was to take effect, did not, on the
facts disclosed, show a delivery of it in completion of SEPTEMBER, 1880.
the contract, or furnish any evidence that the minds
of the parties had met. It was not enough that the CARRIER OF PASSENGERS — INJURY TO PASSENGER ON form of the policy had been approved, for it was still
RAILROAD-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE optional with F. whether he would by payment make SITTING ON FRONT PLATFORM.-Plaintiff's intestate, a it a binding contract. If he declined or neglected to passenger on defendant's street railroad car, when the pay, the company would have no claim for the premium car was approaching a draw-bridge sat down on the against him or against his estate, because the risk front platform. He was told by the driver of the car never attached. A proof of loss by the widow and that he had better not sit in that place, as it was personal representative of F. did not amount to such against the rules of the defendant and unsafe, to which ratification of the unauthorized payment by F.'s sishe made a reply not understood by the driver. He
ter as would give validity to the policy. The difficulty continued to occupy bis position while the car was de- is that there was no contract existing at the time of tained at the bridge some fifteen minutes by an open the death to be ratified. The payment of the premium draw; and remained there until he fell from the car was not the payment by another of a debt due from after it had passed the bridge, receiving the injuries F., which the administrator, without affecting the whereof he died. There were notices posted upon the rights of the company, would have power to ratify; car forbidding passengers to be upon the platforms and and to say that the administrator might do it so as to that the defendant would not be responsible for the bind the company, would be to say that a policy of life safety of passengers while there. In an action for insurance may be made to take effect as a contract by such injuries, held, that the defendant was not liable. an act of ratification by the administrator after tho It was for the plaintiff to prove that the intestate was death of the person whose life is thereby insured. free from negligence contributing to the injury which Whiting v. Massachusetts Life Insurance Co. Opinion he received. Plaintiff could recover if the case pre- by Colt, J. sented failed to disclose the exercise on his part of ordinary care, as judged of in the light of common NEGLIGENCE — FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FLAGMAN OR knowledge and experience. The rule is to be applied GATE AT RAILROAD CROSSING, IN ABSENCE OF MUNICIwhich requires the exercise of such care as men of PAL REQUIREMENTS, MAY BE.-In an action for injuries common prudence usually exercise in positions of like received by plaintiffs who were travelling in the highexposure and danger. The question is in most cases a way at a crossing of defendant's railroad, by reason of question to be submitted to the jury, but when the defendant's negligence, it was claimed that defendant circumstances are not complicated, and the undisputed was negligent in not having a gate or a flagman at tho evidence discloses conduct which would be condemned railroad crossing. It appeared that no proper author. as careless by men of common prudence, it is the duty ity had ever required the establishment of a flagman of the judge to instruct the jury to find a verdict for or gate at this crossing. The court below ruled that it the defendant. Garrett v. Manchester & Lawrence R. was competent for the jury, under tho declaration, to Co., 16 Gray, 501; Gahagan v. Boston & Lowell R. Co., consider whether the defendant had used such reason1 Allen, 187; Todd v. Old Colony R. Co., 7 id. 207. able care, in addition to tho ringing of the bell or tho The evidence in this case wholly failed to show that blowing of the whistlo required by the statutes, as the intestate was in the exercise of due care. He was a safety of travellers demanded at this particular crosspassenger occupying an exposed and unusual place in a ing. Held, that the ruling was correct, as recognized constrained and awkward position, against the rules of by numerous decisions. These cases all rest on the the road and the warning of the driver. The case common-law rule that when there are different public differs from Meesel v. Lynn & Boston R. Co., 8 Allen, easements to be enjoyed by two parties, at the same 234. A street railway corporation has a right to make time and at the same place, each must use his privilege all reasonable regulations for the safety of passengers. with due care not to injure the other. The rule applies A rule prohibiting passengers from riding on the front to grade crossings, because the traveller and the railplatform is a reasonable regulation; and one who road each has common rights in the highway at those knowingly violates it, without some reasonable excuse points. The fact that the Legislature has seen fit for or necessity, cannot be said to be free from negligence, the additional safety of travellers imperatively to reif the act contributes to his injury. There could be no quire the corporation to use certain waruings at such
crossings, does not relieve it from the duty of doing could have been present if he had desired, but preferwhatever else may be reasonably necessary. Bradley red not to be. Subsequently the party assaulted died, v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 2 Cush. 539; Linfield v. Old and a charge of murder was preferred in lieu of the Colouy R. Co., 10 id. 562; Norton v. Eastern R. Co., | original charge of assault with intent to kill. Upon 113 Mass. 366; Favor v. Boston & Lowell R. Co., 114 the trial upon this charge, evidence was received of the id. 351. Even though the proper authorities had never testimony given by such deceased witness on the prerequired the maintenance of a gate or flagman at the liminary examination. Held no error. In United crossing in question, the defendant was still under the States v. Macomb, 5 McLean, 286, the testimony of a rule which requires the exercise of reasonable care on witness since deceased, given on a preliminary examits part; and the jury could not be limited in their in- ination, was held admissible on the trial of the indictquiries by the fact that a gate or a flagman has never ment found for the same offense. See. also, Davis v. been ordered, however proper it might be for them to State, 17 Ala. 354; Kendrick v. State, 10 Humph. 479; take that fact into consideration. Eaton v. Fitchburg Rex v. Barber, 1 Root (Conn.), 76; Bostwick v. State, 3 Railroad Co. Opinion by Colt, J.
Humph. 344; State v. Campbeil, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 214;
Atkins, 1 Overton, 229. Both reason and authority
unite to support the competency of this testimony.
Kansas Supreme Court, July term, 1880. State of PLEADING-IDEM' SONANS.—The indictment charged | Kansas v. Wilson. Opinion by Brewer, J. defendant with entry into a stable with intent to commit “larcey." Held, that the maxim of idem sonans did not apply so as to render the indictment valid by
CORRESPONDENCE. reason of the word “larcey" meaning “larceny.' California Supreme Court, Aug. 17, 1880. People of
JUSTICE DAVIS. California v. St. Clair. Opinion per curiam.
Editor of the Albany Law Journal: RIGHT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO BE ASSISTED BY Mr. Arnoux's communication in the LAW JOURNAL COUNSEL- EVIDENCE - TESTIMONY OF DECEASED WIT- of the 4th inst., concerning Mr. Justice Davis, does NESS. - (1) Under statutes making it the duty of a not fully dispose of the case. That distinguished county attorney to appear in the District Court and judge's abilities are well known. Lawyers who have prosecute all criminal cases, and providing that no felt compelled to condemn his performance of the county attorney should receive any fee or other reward character of a committing magistrate, would deeply from any prosecutor or individual for services in prose- regret his absence from the tribunal where his learning cuting criminals, nor be an attorney or counsel for any and ability could with difficulty be supplied. From party other than the State, in any civil action depend the General Term of the Supreme Court it is to be ing upon the same facts upon which a criminal prose- hoped that he will not soon deem himself called away cution undetermined might depend, held, that this in deference to a precedent which might better be did not prohibit the county attorney from accepting called notorious than illustrious. the assistance of counsel employed for hire by private In the Philp case the justice differed in opinion from parties to aid him in a criminal prosecution. The case the testimony by a witness of his own opinion conof Meister v. People, 31 Mich. 101, dissented from. The cerning the genuineness of certain handwriting. The purpose of a public prosecution is to prevent the use question of genuineness was, in the view of the law of the criminal law to gratify private malice or accom- taken by the justice, of essential importance to the plish personal gain. This purpose is fully subserved prisoner. The testimony of an accomplice before the when the control of the case is with the county attor- fact -of a witness who by asserting its genuineness ney. As to an argument that if private counsel be had prompted the exhibition, or rather publication, of permitted, the county attorney will be influenced by this writing, would be of less weight than that of a their wishes and defer to their views and thus in effect person free from such previous connection with the a private be substituted for a public prosecution, a suspected writing. Is it not a fact that the justice so satisfactory reply is, that if he is disposed to so yield misstated the evidence before him as to place this and defer, he will be as apt to do it when those sugges- witness for the prisoner in the position of an accomtions aud wishes are made known to him outside the plice, whose testimony as that of an accomplice was to court room, and that there is less danger of wrong by be deemed of little weight? May not the justice's permitting private counsel to appear and act openly in own conclusion in the matter have been aided by his the presence of the court, than by shutting them out mistake concerning the facts ? from any open participation in the trial and leaving Such an error, according to the spirit of the English them to their private and secret suggestions to him in law, when committed to the possible prejudice of a his office. Publicity prevents wrong, and the courts prisoner is inexcusable. It is startling to think what can always check undue zeal. The true construction might result from similar want of attention in a trial of the statute is that it prohibits the public prosecutor involving life or death.
C. W. S. from accepting private compensation and gives him Dec. 9, 1880. the control of all public prosecutions, leaving to him a discretion as to the matter of accepting offered assist
NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS. ance, subject to the power of the court to interfere and prevent any oppression of the defendant, and
BLISS' NEW YORK ANNOTATED CODE, VOL. II. holding bim personally responsible for any violation of the statute or malfeasance in office. See State v. The New York Code of Civil Procedure, chapters 14 to 22, as Bartlett, 55 Me. 200; Commonwealth v. Knapp, 10 enacted in 1880, with explanatory notes showing the Pick. 478; Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 Cush. 582. changes introduced thereby, together with the statutory (2) Defendant was arrested and a preliminary examina
provisions on the same subjects still remaining in force, tion held on a charge of assault with intent to kill. On
with notes of judicial decisions on pleading, practice
and evidence. Vol. II. By George Bliss. New York: such examination the testimony of the party assaulted
Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1880. was taken. This testimony was taken at the rooms of the witness, he being unable to move therefrom, and THIS volume completes a work upon which a very in the presence of the justice and the counsel for defendant, the defendant himself being absent. He l and which has been already recognized as of almost
incalculable benefit to the practicing lawyers of this The subject of confining judges to work on the bench State. When the old Code was in force, what was alone is attracting attention in other States. We have known as “ Voorhies’ Code," prepared by John Towns- before us a letter from a well-known lawyer iu New hend, Esq., was considered by our bar as an indispens- Hampshire, whose attention has been attracted to the able part of a working law library. The enactment of discussion in Connecticut and elsewhere. He says: the first thirteen chapters of the present Code im- | •We are troubled with the same pernicious system paired, to a great extent, the usefulness of that com- here. The practice of permitting judges to appoint pilation, but the first volume, prepared by Mr. Bliss, each other as referees, and of their sitting as such who incorporated so much of that as was relevant with from the close of one term to the beginning of another his own labors, furnished as full and complete a col- - devoting no time to the preparation of their publection of case law, upon the matters it related to, as lisbed decisions, or to the briefs or arguments of counwas then practicable. By the adoption of the final sel - is having a disastrous effect upon the quality of chapters of the new Code the statute law regulating their judgments and upon that respect which an intelpractice here became comparatively symmetrical, and ligent profession ought to feel for the decisions of an an opportunity was afforded Mr. Bliss to finish what intelligent court. I think some effort will be made to he had undertaken. This he has availed himself of in compel our court to attend to its legitimate duties.'" a manner which cannot fail to meet the approbation Our excellent contemporary should reflect that a man of the bench and bar of this State. As most of the at seventy is crowded for time, and rarely has much profession are familiar with the first volume of the opportunity thereafter to lay up money, however effiwork, an extended notice of the one before us is un- cient the training of the “ * preparatory school” may necessary. From a somewhat thorough examination have been. The judges may not ask for pensions, but we are satisfied that no reported case of any value in we think they would not refuse them, and that they relation to practice has been overlooked. And as such ought to have them. provisions of the statute law upon that subject as are not contained in the Code are referred to, and in some The December number of the American Law Reinstances given in full, we do not hesitate to pronounce view contains leading articles by James B. Thayer on the entire work a complete hand-book of the law of Bedingfield's Case--Declarations as a part of the res procedure in our various civil courts.
gestæ, and by Joseph Willard on Right of a creditor to The annotations to the chapter upon surrogates' courts, his sureties' securities. - - The November number of which are stated in the preface to be the work of Wm. the Western Jurist has an article on Damages in tort as T. Schley, Esq., will be found of peculiar value in view affected by insurance. of the important changes made by tho Code in regard to those courts avd proceedings before them.
At the second annual meeting of the Alabama State
Bar Association, held at Montgomery, Dec. 20, the NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. annual address was delivered by the president, Edmund
W. Pettus; and papers were read by M. L. Stausel on THE.collowing decisions were handed down Tuesday, Decasterug blu a Ciebteoree F. Jurisdiction of ciao
Judgment affirmed with costs - The Union Dime Federal Courts over Suits against Municipal CorporaSavings Bank v. Andariese; Decker v. Boice; Tair.tor tions. —One of the ablest and best known lawyers of v. Hemingway; Avery v. Wheat; Johnson v. Heiser;
this State writes us about Judge Davis' attack on Mr. Patton y, Giles.- Judgment affirmed -- The People v.
Hewett: "A more inexcusable stab at private characBork; The People v. Cox.-Judgment reversed and
ter was never dealt from the safe seclusion of the new trial granted, costs to abide event- Davies v. The judgment seat.”—The Memphis Avalanche says: Mayor, etc., of New York; Schwinger v. Raymond; “The ALBANY LAW JOURNAL should cultivate the Devens v. The Mechanics and Traders' Insurance Com- Avalanche more intimately. We are very nice and company.—Judgment reversed and new trial granted, panionable, and disposed to growl only at persons who costs to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to
insist that the people of the north and the south have reduce its recovery by striking therefrom $8,200, and any cause for making ugly faces at each other.” interest thereon, in which event, judgment as so modified, affirmed with costs — - The Chenango Bridge Four men in India bought several bales of India Company v. Paige. --Order reversed and motion for rugs, and also some cotton bales. That the rats might commission denied without costs- In re Hahn.-Or- not destroy the cotton, they purchased a cat. It was der affirmed, and judgment absolute for respondent, on agreed that each of the four should own a particular stipulation, with costs Osborn v. Schenck.- -Motion | leg of the cat; and each adorned with beads, etc., the for re-argument denied without costs In re Eldridge. | particular leg apportioned to him. The cat accidentally
injured one of its legs and the owner of that member
wound a rag around it, soaked in oil. The cat going NOTES.
too near the hearth set the rag on fire, and being in
great pain rushed iu among the cotton bales where she OF
our recent comment on judges acting as referees, was accustomed to hunt rats and set fire to the cotton
the Hartford Evening Post says: “No doubt the and rugs, which were consumed. The three owners of judges think the salary insufficient, but it has hap- the unburnt legs brought a suit against the other to pened in Connecticut that when a judge has retired recover the value of the goods destroyed. The defrom the bench in old age he has not only shown a re- fendant denied his liability and claimed to recover markable physical vigor and ability to work, but has against the plaintiffs. The court said: “The leg that been able to make more money out of committee work had the oiled rag on it was hurt; the cat could not use alone than he earned when serving in the double that leg; in fact, it held up that leg and ran with the capacity of judge and committeeman. The bench other three legs. The three unhurt legs, therefore, here has been a sort of preparatory school for the re- carried the fire to the cotton and alone are culpable. tirement of judges at seventy years of age into fields The injured leg is not to be blamed. The three partof work and usefulness most promising in a pecuniary ners who owned the three legs with which the cat ran point of view. An ex-judge in this State was never to the cotton, will pay the whole value of the bales to known to be seriously overworked nor to die young, the partner who was the proprietor of the injured and the last thing he would ask would be a pension. | leg."
The Albany Law Journal.
time afford a reasonable protection to the honest and well-meaning publisher. As the laws of the
different States now stand, neither of the objects as ALBANY, DECEMBER 25, 1880.
above stated is very well or satisfactorily secured.” Mr. Reid, of the New York Tribune, thinks two
changes ought to be made: first, malice ought not CURRENT TOPICS.
to be presumed, but should be matter of affirmative THERE seems just now to have been a sort of proof; second, where there is no malice and there is
no actual damage, there should be no judgment this country to say something on the subject of libel, except for costs. The law which awards only nomiapparently with a view to ascertain just how much
nal damages under the circumstances last mentioned the people will stand from the press. Mr. Godkin,
substantially amounts to what Mr. Reid would have. editor of the Nation, starts off in the December
As to the other point, Mr. Reid's requirement would Atlantic, but he does not arrive anywhere in partic
amount to a defeat of justice three times in four.
The Times continues: “Another editor in this State ular. He tells us that most of the libelling is done by newspapers ; that the public practically demand properly holds that there ought to be further legit in respect to candidates for public office; that in
islation for the protection of newspaper publishers, some well-regulated communities libel suits are un
requiring that persons bringing suits shall give ap
As it is now,' he says, known, the gentlemanly practice of duelling being proved security for costs. the vogue instead; that it would be foolish for one
a shyster lawyer may commence action in behalf of editor to sue another for libel; that the law of
a vagabond client, and make us costs without remdamages in libel frequently affords very inadequate would be as ridiculous as to exact from every pub
ate edy, though our defense be successful." " This reparation: that the French law, which absolutely lisher a bond of indemnity against damages every prohibits the publication in any periodical of any thing relating to a man's private life, which is not in
time he essays to print any thing personal that can issue in a criminal proceeding, might possibly be ad- possibly injure if it prove not true. The community vantageously adopted here; that the slow procedure is not in half so much danger from “shyster” lawin actions of libel in this country frequently defeats
yers as from “shyster” editors. The privilege of justice, and that the English procedure of criminal suing an editor ought not to be any dearer than that information is superior; that something might per
of suing one who is not an editor, haps be devised to prevent indecent assaults by the press on private character, but that after all such The editor of the New York Times holds that acassaults are far less common than might reasonably tual malice should always be shown in criminal cases, be apprehended. This seems the gist of Mr. God- unless the case is one where the civil law will not kin's unobjectionable and very inconclusive article. provide an adequate remedy ; that trials should be But the tone and spirit of it leave the impression had in the county in which the publication was that the writer's sympathies are on the right side, made, if the defendant so desire; and that the peand it must be said that the Nation never libels riod in which suit for libel must be brought be reanybody. In short, we guess that the writer would duced from two years to one year. Furthermore, gladly see some restraints on the license of news- that a suitable retraction, showing a desire to right papers, but he does not suggest what he would a wrong done, should act as a bar to a criminal have. After witnessing the foul and shocking ex- prosecution, should rebut the presumption of malice, cesses of the political newspapers in the late cam- and should act in reducing the damages to the paign, we wish that wisdom could devise some amount shown to have been inflicted. Finally, he preventive, some remedy, or some effectual repara- makes the important observation that the only eftion.
fectual way in which to prevent unscrupulous at
torneys from taking up cases spec.” is by strictly The Troy Times says: “Early this year the Michi- enforcing the laws against champerty and maintengan press association appointed a committee whose ance, and by making the attorneys personally liable duty, among other things, was to correspond with for costs under certain circumstances. The Troy a large number of publishers throughout the country Times adds: “If all or most of the above suggesand ascertain their views as to what legal protection tions were embodied in libel laws, the press would the press needs in the matter of the increasing fre- have little reason to complain. In some States quency of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions for these laws are so imperfect that journalists are selibel. About sixty prominent journalists were ac- riously impeded in the prosecution of their work as cordingly applied to for their views on the subject. agents of news and guardians of the public good.” A part of the responses received by the committee The above is a specimen of average editorial inhave been printed in pamphlet form and distributed. telligence and sense in respect to law. The idea of They are exceedingly interesting as showing the making an officer of court personally liable for costs tendency of the journalistic profession, if not of the under any circumstances is ridiculous. The press general public, to secure the framing of such libel do not need protection. They already have a license laws as shall at once protect the community from regarded by many as outrageous and dangerous. reckless and abusive publications, and at the same The editors are not such weak saints as need extra-,
VOL. 22.- No. 26.
ordinary defenses. They are the most powerful annoyance to the profession. It would be well if body of men in the community, and are none too the State could purchase the interests of the prescareful about exercising their power. If there is ent publishers at a fair price; but if this cannot be any need of legislation – which we doubt – it is done, there is an excellent opportunity for the State to protect the community against the editors. We to do what is greatly needed, namely, to publish a think the jury will take care of the citizens. new edition of the past volumes, leaving out obso
lete and overruled matter, and mere memoranda of Mr. Justice Strong has retired from the bench of decisions, and embracing such portions of Abbott's the United States Supreme Court, at the age of 72, Decisions and Keyes' Reports as ought to be covand is entitled to his annual salary of $10,000 for ered by the regular series, re-writing the head notes life, having served for more than 10 years. He had and statements of fact in many instances, omitting previously served 10 years as chief justice of Penn- a great many of the citations of counsel, and givsylvania, resigning in 1868. He was nominated to ing the volumes cohesion by notes and references. the Federal Supreme Court bench by President
Such a series would supplant the old, if the publishGrant in 1870. President Hayes has nominated
ers would not listen to reason. But whether this Judge Woods to succeed him. Judge Woods was were done or not, in the future the State should admitted to the bar in 1847, and pursued practice publish its own reports, at a fair price, and should till 1857. He was then chosen to the Ohio Legisla- not give them away. ture and made speaker, and was re-elected in 1858. At the beginning of the civil war he became lieu
Judge Macomber, at New York Special Term, in tenant-colonel of the Seventy-sixth Ohio infantry,
Kerrison v. Kerrison, has passed upon the vexed and was mustered out as major-general in Alabama, question of a marriage by a party divorced and forwhere he settled in 1865. In 1868 he was made bidden to marry again during the marriage of the chancellor of the State, and after serving two years,
other party, and going to another State, for the purwas appointed Circuit judge of the United States pose of evading the prohibition, and there contractfor the Fifth Circuit, which includes the districts of ing a second marriage during the marriage of the Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and
other party. Judge Macomber holds that such a other Southern States. The Albany Argus says: marriage is valid. This was an action by the second “His character as a gentleman, his humanity and
wife to have the second marriage declared void. firmness as a magistrate, and his abilities as a jurist, The decision was influenced by the fact that the are marked.” It is rumored that Judge Erskine, of plaintiff was herself cognizant of and assenting to the Georgia Federal District Court, will be named
the fraud, and therefore did not come with clean to succeed Judge Woods. The selection of Judge | hands. It is possible that this circumstance may be Woods harmonizes with our views of geographical
sufficient to warrant the decision, and that the rest fitness, but the question arises, what becomes of of the holding may be obiter. At all events, it is Pennsylvania's interests? We really hope that when contrary to the General Term decision of Marshall Judge Swayne retires, his successor will be taken v. Marshall, 2 Hun, 238, which it examines and disfrom Pennsylvania. Probably by diligent inquiry approves. A correspondent writes us that there are the president could find one proper person, resident
two other decisions to the contrary, and following of that State, who was born in Ohio, if, as it seems,
the Marshall case, now on their way up. See 21 birth or residence in Ohio is essential to an appoint- Alb. L. J. 486. ment to office under the present administration.
NOTES OF CASES.
We wish to emphasize the idea, which we ad
N interesting case of definition is re Lord Lon. vanced the other day, that our Court of Appeals desborough, Bridgman v. Lord Otto Fitzgerald, Reports should be owned and published by the before Malins, V. C., Nov. 8, 1880, 43 L. T. (N. S.) State. This practice obtains in many States, and is A. by his will bequeathed unto his wife absopreferable to the present custom. The labors of the lutely all his or her "jewels, trinkets, gold and silreporter, for which the State pays, should be the ver plate, ornamental and other china, and all obproperty of the State, and if there is any profit in jects of vertu and taste.” And he directed that his the sale, that should belong to the State. At pres- wife should be entitled during life to his leasehold ent there are four different owners of the series, and messuage with the appurtenances in Carlton Houseas many different prices. Every three years here- terrace, and the statuary, furniture, and other effects after it is possible that there will be a new publisher. purchased by him therewith, or which might be The difficulty of getting a complete set is already therein at the time of his decease. After her death very considerable, and must continually increase the said leasehold premises, statuary, and effects under this system. The purchaser, too, is at the were directed to be sold, and the produce was made mercy of such of the publishers as are not bound part of his residuary estate. There were in the said by the contract price beyond the term of three house at the testator's death, but not purchased by years. There is one price for purchasers in this State, him therewith, ten pictures, valued at £15,000. and another for those residing in other States. Out Held, that the words -objects of vertu and taste" of the present system have grown unseemly squab- were intended to include only things ejusdem generis bles and litigations, and delay, inconvenience and with those enumerated, and did not include the