Justice Grantham to-day an aged woman suf- The Humanitarian League have drafted a bill, the object of which is to check the wholesale destruction of birds for purposes of ornamentation. The birds scheduled in the bill are those which appear to be more especially in danger of extinction owing to the demand for them in the feather market; and all of them are British birds in the sense that they are native in one or another part of the empire. A memorandum issued by the league states, as a proof of the extent of the destruction that at present goes on, that at a recent sale in Mincing-lane a single dealer offered 2,151 birds of Paradise and 1,181 Impeyan pheasants, together with large numbers of other species.- Law Times. The International Society of Comparative Jurisprudence and Public Economy, which has its headquarters at Berlin, but which boasts a distinguished membership throughout the civilized world, has just undertaken a work of great importance. proposes to issue a series of volumes containing the private law of the different civilized communities of the world, drawn up, so far as circumstances permit, on the model of the German Imperial Civil Code of 1900. The place of honor in the series has been alloted to the English volume, the editorship of which has been intrusted to Mr. Edward Jenks, with whom a number of distinguished jurists will collaborate. It is hoped that this volume will appear before the close of 1903.- Law Times. eyes the multitude of corsets ranged in line. It was precisely these corsets which led to the present litigation, and procured for the public the pleasure of listening to the lady barrister. The learned counsel, it seems, edified the court with such elaborate technical details regarding corsets that her male adversary was fairly confounded, and the magisterial mind so bewildered as to require eight days to ponder over the matter before pronouncing judgment. It may be recalled that some years back Mlle. Chauvin had to fight tooth and nail against prejudice and precedent in order to secure the right to practice as a barrister, after passing very brilliantly all the needful examinations. She now appears to be reaping the reward of her patient, persevering struggle which some time ago was the topic of the day in Paris.- Law Times. The ranks of solicitors are being increasingly recruited from the ranks of university men, remarks the Sheffield Telegraph. At the last final examination of the Incorporated Law Society some twenty per cent of the successful candidates were holders of university degrees. At the bar the tendency is the other way, and these two opposite directions will perhaps continue until even the very junior barrister will no longer speak of solicitors as belonging to the lower branch of the legal profession. The lord chancellor has consented to become the president of the Pegasus Club for the ensuing year, and he will take the chair at the annual dinner of the club, which will be held at the Grand Hotel on Saturday, the twelfth of April next. A decision to which we would draw attention is The late Madame the Luton Hoo tapestry case. De Falbe was the wife of a Mr. Leigh, who died in 1875, and left Luton Hoo House to her for life. It In 1883 she married M. De Falbe, and in 1886 decorated the drawing-room by fixing seven tapestries, worth some £7,000, in frames to the walls. It is now contended by the heir-at-law that these were annexed to the freehold, and so on Mme. De Falbe's death belonged to him, as they went with the house. This was not accepted by the House of Lords, for as the lord chancellor pointed out, both the purpose and the degree of annexation must be considered. Tapestries of this kind are merely pictures in another form and are capable of being moved easily and without damage to Mlle. Chauvin, one of the few lady barristers in themselves and the freehold, unlike frescoes, whose France, has just acted as counsel in an action for removal would necessitate their destruction and infringement of patent corsets. The court-room is injury to the house. Upon the point raised this case described as resembling a music-hall stage rather is in distinct contrast to the one we have menthan anything else, so numerous were the elegantly tioned above. Few subjects, perhaps, have given dressed ladies, examining with expert feminine rise to more difference of judicial opinion than fix tures, and we do not think that in the future there will be less litigation upon this matter, owing to the reason that the facts in each particular case must be considered separately.- Law Times. ANNOUNCEMENT. United States Senator John L. McLaurin and Frank L. Welles have formed a law partnership under the name of McLaurin & Welles, with offices at 1333 F street, Washington, D. C. It is their intention to practice in the Supreme Court and departments for non-resident attorneys, either as leading or associate counsel. Humorous Side of the Law. Not long ago Judge Dickey, of the Supreme Court, who hails from Newburgh, was holding court in Brooklyn, says the New York Times. The lawyer for the defendant in the case before him occupied the time of the court by asking practically the same question over and over again. Judge Dickey called his attention to this fact once or twice, and finally became provoked and said to the lawyer: "You have gone over that ground time and time again, counselor. Your questions suggest 'crabs' to me - they always go sideways and do not get ahead - and I do not like crabs." "Not exactly," answered the judge; "but it is a rectifying plant.”— Philadelphia Times. "It gets curioser and curioser," exclaims Alice in Wonderland. Mr. Pitt-Lewis, K. C., the deputy judge of the City of London Court, was inclined to do the same. Some time ago he tried a case of Alabaster v. White; a little while afterwards there was one of High v. Low; and now he was confronted with a suit of Halfpenny v. Penny. His honor was at first under the impression that someone was playing a joke, but the litigants were real enough. Strange conjunctions of names occur, however, in other places than law courts. In the early part of the century a parson in Bloomsbury began one morning by tying the nuptial knot between "Prior and Nun." The second couple em A lawyer once asked the late Judge Pickens, of Alabama, to charge the jury that "it is better that ninety and nine guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be punished." "Yes," said the witty judge, "I will give that charge; but, in the opinion of the court the ninety and nine guilty men have already escaped in this county.”— Exchange. Tired of the long-winded oratory of the attorney for the defense, the judge interrupted him. "Mr. Sharke," he said, 'may I ask you a question?" 66 66 'Certainly, your honor. What is it?" “Language,” said the judge, “we are told is given to conceal thought, or words to that effect. Inasmuch as you don't seem to have any thought to conceal, I would like to know why you are talking?"- Ex. These combined injuries made a breach in his placidity, and he picked up a stone and threw it with accurate aim at the colored man and brother. This infraction of the peace resulted in his arrest and in his conviction in the local court of justice. "I fine you five dollars," said the judge. "Have you anything to say?" "Nothing,” replied D., unmollified, “except that I wished I had killed the fellow." That remark will cost you five dollars more," remarked his honor. D.'s temper was not improved by this fresh dispensation of justice, wherefore the bitterness of his rejoinder was plainly apparent. The Albany Law Journal. Constitution makes of the governor a dictator A Monthly Record of the Law and the Lawyers. Published by THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL COMPANY, Albany, N. Y. Contributions, items of news about courts, judges and lawyers' queries or comments, criticisms on various law questions, addresses on legal topics, or discussions on questions of timely interest, are solicited from members of the bar and those interested in legal proceedings. [All communications intended for the Editor should be addressed simply to the Editor of THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL. All letters relating to advertisements, subscriptions or other business matters should be addressed to THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL COMPANY.] Subscription price, Three Dollars per annum, in advance. Single number, Twenty-five Cents. ALBANY, N. Y., APRIL, 1902. Current Topics. and of our form of government a despotism. He is accountable for the proper exercise of the power granted him to the people of the State. We do not think his action is reviewable by the courts. Let us suppose a case in which an elective officer of the class referred to in the section were found, after election, to be a felon who had never been restored to citizenship. Could not the governor remove him? We have heretofore adverted to the fact that the term for which John Clinton Gray was elected an associate judge of the Court of Appeals, will expire with the current year, and have urged his renomination by both of the great political parties this fall, in order that the State may make absolutely certain his retention. has been a member for nearly fourteen years. on the bench of the great tribunal of which he In addition to the convincing reasons adduced why such a course should be taken, the following excellent article from the New York Sun of March twelfth is of peculiar interest and importance: Whichever political party may succeed in the State election in November next, there is one thing which should be done by both parties, and that is, to nominate for associate judge of the Court of Ap Judge Gaynor's decision in the case of Sheriff Guden, of King's county, raises one of the most interesting questions that have been before the courts of this State for a long time. That question is simply whether or not under the Constitution, a governor has the right to remove an elective officer for offenses committed prior to entering upon the duties of his office. Justice Gaynor holds that he has not this power, that he can only remove an officer for offenses committed in office. We think that Judge Gaynor is wrong and Governor Odell right. The power of removal which peals and to re-elect to office the present incumbent, the governor has in the premises is conferred whose term expires at the end of this year, John by section I of article 10 of the State Constitu- | Clinton Gray. And this nomination should be made tion, which reads: "The governor may remove any officer in this section mentioned, within the term for which he shall have been elected; giving to such officer a copy of the charges against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense." This language is clear and unequivocal; the governor's power is absolute. What the nature of the charges must be is nowhere in the organic law specified. The officers mentioned in the said section are sheriffs, county clerks, registers and district attorneys. The only qualifying clause of the grant of power is that which directs the governor, before tak- and beyond that, it is a court which has merited and ing action, to notify the accused official in order which has received the regard and admiration not that he may explain and disprove the charges, only of the bar, but of the general electors, because if possible. This is precisely what Governor it has upheld the safeguards of the State ConstituOdell did in the Guden case. We find our- tion and has firmly adhered to the preservation of selves unable to agree with Judge Gaynor in the contention that this interpretation of the VOL. 64.- No. 4. by Republicans and Democrats alike, irrespective of party or of partisan motive, because of the conscienJudge Gray in the many years throughout which he has already adorned that bench. He has given fourteen consecutive years to the public service, and the question of his re-election now comes before the people. tious and faithful service rendered to the State by Judge Gray is in the prime of life, and has many years before him in which he can continue the great and good judicial work which he has already done. Able, impartial, intellectual and of the highest personal character, he certainly deserves re-election! The Court of Appeals is not only the court of last resort, the decisions of which are final, but above our organic instrument of government. And no man on that bench more fully deserves the recognition of his merits than does Judge Gray. His importance of its preservation could not receive a more striking illustration than in the present instance. Whatever else be done, John Clinton Gray must be renominated for judge of the Court of Appeals. opinions are of the best type, strong and just, remarkable for their wealth of legal learning and for accurate discrimination when nice points of law are involved. Moreover, they are clear and lucid, and written in pure and correct English — virtues which do not always accompany high ability on the bench. It would be difficult to add anything to the If we look over the list of judges of the Court of Appeals since the Constitutional Amendment of 1869 above convincing statement, and we shall not we find that in every instance during all this period attempt it, contenting ourselves with a reiteraof time during the whole history of the court as tion of the hope that Judge Gray may be honat present constituted - every judge has been re-ored by a unanimous re-election to the bench renominated, except Judge Francis M. Finch, who of the court which he has so signally honored. preferred not to be re-elected, because, in the event of such re-election, he would only have had about one year to serve before reaching the age limit which would have compelled his retirement. nominated by both parties who could have been so Sanford E. Church, William F. Allen, Martin Grover, Rufus W. Peckham and William C. Ruger died during their respective terms of office. Charles J. Folger resigned in 1881 during his term of office. Theodore Miller retired in 1886 because he had attained the Constitutional limitation of age, and George F. Danforth retired in 1889 from age limitation. Rufus W. Peckham (the second) resigned in 1895 during his term of office upon being appointed a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. But the only three judges of the court — aside from Judge Finch, whose case we have explained - who could have been renominated by both parties, were Charles A. Rapallo, Charles Andrews and Robert Earl, and they all were not only renominated by both parties, but were practically unanimously re-elected. Charles A. Rapallo, who was elected a judge of the Court of Appeals in 1870 at the age of forty-seven years, served a full term, and in 1884 was renominated by both parties and was re-elected by the substantially unanimous vote of Democrats and Republicans alike. He died during his second term. Charles Andrews was elected judge of the court in 1870 at the age of forty-three years, and after having served his full term of fourteen years, in 1884, he was renominated by both parties and reelected, virtually, by the unanimous vote of the electors of the whole State. Eight years later, in 1892, after the death of Chief Judge Ruger, Judge Andrews was nominated by both parties for chief judge and was elected by the practically unanimous vote of the State. The third instance is that of Robert Earl, who was renominated and re-elected by both parties in 1889. In 1894 he retired from age limitation. This analysis speaks well for the people of this State; it speaks well for the two great political parties, because this unbroken record shows the readiness of the people to disregard party lines in the renomination of able and worthy judges, who have rendered honorable and unremitting service to the public. The record of the past must not be destroyed. The same high estimate of judicial merit and of judicial integrity must be preserved, and the If there is any department of the State government where experiments should be sedulously avoided, it is in the judiciary. Judge Gray has, by his fourteen years of brilliant, enduring work, given ample evidence of the possession of those qualities everywhere recognized as indispensable in the judges of our highest courts. That he will be honored in the manner suggested, we have no doubt whatever. The bill which was intended to do away with the abuses connected with the publication of the Supreme Court Reports and reduce the cost of the same to the legal profession, seems to have run against the "rocks" in the assembly, after having been thoroughly aired before the codes committee and finally reported favorably to the lower house of the legislature. Mr. Blackwell, the energetic and able young member from Brooklyn, whose name the bill bore, made a gallant fight against big odds, and it is nothing to his discredit or any disparagement of his ability that he was finally defeated in his conscientious endeavor to bring about a real and long-needed reform in connection with the publication of these reports. That the opposition were able to defeat the bill when it came up for second reading, by the specious claim that as it carried an appropriation it ought to have been referred to the appropriations committee, is a sad commentary upon the subserviency of the majority in the house where, unfortunately, there are many automatons who can be counted upon to "follow their leader,” right or wrong. Leader Allds's motion to refer the bill to the appropriations committee was carried by a fairly close vote, and that committee, of course, carried out the previously arranged programme to smother the measure. But, like Banquo's ghost, it will not down; there is no good reason why Mr. Hun or any other private individual should be permitted to traffic in the copyright of these books, and by means of the contract for their printing and publication enjoy very large emoluments which should go to the treasury of the State. On the contrary, there is every reason why the publication of the Appellate Division Reports should be under the charge of an official reporter, as is the case with the Court of Appeals and Miscellaneous Reports, and in our opinion this would have been done long ago but for the sinister influence of the Printing Octopus which is reported to have strewed "rocks" plentifully in the path of this reform measure. But the opposition will not always be successful. The measure will be introduced again next year and perhaps with better results for the public at large. In the meantime, the governor should exercise his prerogative, at least so far as the Miscellaneous Reports are concerned, and compel a reduction in the price of the volumes to at least ninety cents. We publish in another part of this issue a timely and interesting article by Mr. Linton D. Landrum, of Columbus, Miss., on the subject of general pleading imposing upon juries the decision of questions of law. It is very evident to any competent attorney," says the author, "that the system of general pleading | now coming into use, whereby general issues, involving both fact and law, are submitted to juries, thereby necessitating charges from the court to the jury as to the law for which they are not qualified and were never intended, strikes at the very foundation of our jury system. Common-law pleading grew out of the jury system, since this system, providing two tribunals, the court for the decision of questions of law and the jury for the decision of questions of fact, necessitated some mode of procedure whereby the fact and law involved in a pleading might be separated, so that the law might be submitted to the court and the fact to the jury for its decision. The first was effected by the demurrer and the second by special pleading. The present system in use with us is the civil law procedure when they had no juries. The effect is to magnify the powers of the judge and to minimize the powers of the jury-in fact, with us the jury is to a great extent the servant of the judge to do his bidding, instead of being, as it ought to be, a separate constitutional part of the court." Mr. Landrum's article will serve to call the attention of the profession to this tendency of procedure, and it is to be hoped that some reform may come out of the discussion. In the death of Judge Noah Davis the profession has lost a profound lawyer, an intellect clear, forcible, vigorous and versatile. In the judicial offices which he filled during his long and singularly useful career he proved a valuable and faithful public servant, evincing rare tact, skill and judgment and a mental resource which few of his contemporaries could boast. In the reports of the decisions of the General Term of the Supreme Court of the First Department he has left a monument of legal learning and sound, practical sense more enduring than of stone or metal. The vacancy caused by his death will not be easily filled. Judge Davis was born at Haverhill, N. H., September 10, 1818, but when he was seven years old his parents removed to Albion, N. Y., where he was educated. Graduating from school, he took up the study of the law and was admitted in 1841. Three years later he formed a copartnership with his old friend, Sanford E. Church, afterward one of the most eminent lawyers and judges in the Empire State, and that connection continued for fourteen years. At the age of thirty-nine, Mr. Davis was appointed a justice of the Supreme Court, to which office he was twice returned. In 1868, having served for two years as a judge, he resigned, due to his overwhelming election on the Republican ticket to the lower house of congress. His service as a legislator was broken into a little more than a year later, when he resigned to accept from President Grant the position of United States attorney for the southern district of New York. This office he held for two years, to resign once more as a public officer on his election as justice of the Supreme Court, to sit in the term expiring in 1887. It was during this period of his service as a justice that there were held before him the famous trials of "Boss" Tweed for malfeasance in office, and that of |