W. Johnson, Marcus T. Hun and Henrietta E. King, A bond securing the payment of a life annuity to A court of bankruptcy will not enjoin foreclosure apply for leave to intervene and have the question The gift of stock to a wife by her husband, made A train dispatcher has been held, in the case of Rinard v. Omaha, K. C. & E. Ry. Co. (64 Southwestern Reporter, 124), to be an employe running a train, within the meaning of the statute providing that whenever a person shall die from an injury resulting from the negligence of any person in running any train the railroad shall be liable. The Supreme Court of Kansas has held, in the case of State v. Herbert (66 Pacific Reporter, 235) that where an offense is committed in the dark, a witness who could not distinguish the features, but did hear the voice of the one who committed the offense, may testify that the defendant was the offender, and that he recognized him by his voice. Judge Pfleger, of the Hamilton County (O.), Common Pleas, last week held, in the case of the State v. Harry Honaker, that, notwithstanding the acts of 1887 dissolving the fiction of the common law that husband and wife are one, so far, at least, as the property rights are concerned, section 3111, R. S., gives the wife an interest in the property of the husband for her support and the maintenance of her minor children. Further, that it was a well-known principle of criminal law that where a taker of goods | obtains any title or interest in personal property as contradistinguished from the mere possession or custody, he may be guilty of obtaining property under false pretenses, if there was any fraud or misrepresentation, but he cannot be guilty of larceny. Therefore, where the wife has the possession of her husband's personal property, by virtue of the conditional interest thus given her, she cannot commit larceny of such property, nor can her paramour be guilty of such offense, or of receiving stolen goods (although adultery may have intervened), if the wife delivers the personal property of the husband to such paramour.- Weekly Law Bulletin, Ohio. The New York Court of Appeals has taken a recess to January 6, 1902. There are about eighty cases remaining undisposed of on the calendar made for January 7, 1901, which will be disposed of before Oral arguments in original motions of any character the new calendar for January 6, 1902, is taken up. will be heard on the first Monday of a session only, but such motions may be submitted on any Monday when the court is in session, provided they are submitted by both sides. The owner of a passenger elevator for the use of tenants and others in a building has been held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Seaver v. Bradley (60 Northeastern Reporter, 795) to be under no obligation to carry passengers, and not to be a common carrier of passengers within the meaning of the statutes relating to the liabilities of common carriers of passengers, and hence is not liable for the death of a passenger caused by the elevator not being in proper repair. A pledgee of shares of stock in a national bank as collateral security for a debt due him from the owner, with power of attorney to transfer the same on the books of the bank, does not become a stockholder, and liable to an assessment as such on the failure of the bank, contrary to his intention, by causing the stock to be transferred into the name of an employe, who holds it for the benefit of all parties interested, nor by any other action which is required or is proper for the protection of both his own interests and those of the pledgor, and not inconsistent with his retention of the stock merely as pledgee, such as paying an assessment required by the comptroller to make good the impaired capital of the bank, and charging the amount to the pledgor (Higgins v. Fidelity Ins. Trust and Safe Deposit Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Third Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 475). Congress certainly suffers from no lack of raw material in digesting the problem how to deal with anarchism. As was anticipated, the nation's lawmaking body has been fairly deluged with measures intended to deal directly or indirectly with the question of its suppression. Senator Burrows has a bill, whose central thought is the same as that which was fathered by Senator Hill, of New York, and passed by the United States senate in 1894. It aims to prevent the immigration of alien anarchists to this country. Mr. Burrows would have it enacted that no alien anarchists shall hereafter be permitted to 8187 land at any port of the United States or be admitted into the United States." The special board of inquiry, authorized by the immigration laws, is directed to "make diligent investigation concerning the antecedents of any alien seeking admission into the United States who is suspected of being an anarchist." The bill provides for the deportation of all who are found to be anarchists, the federal courts being given jurisdiction; and provision is made for twelve immigration agents, whose duty it is to make investigation in foreign countries concerning intending immigrants. A resolution offered by Senator McComas, of Maryland, provides for the punishment and exclusion of anarchists, and urges such changes in the extradition treaties as will permit the extradition of criminal anarchists. Senator Hoar has introduced a bill which provides for the punishment with death of any person who kills or attempts to kill the president or any officer of the United States, or the ruler or chief magistrate of any foreign country. Mr. Hoar's bill, furthermore, decrees that any person advising the killing of the president, or of any officer of the United States, or the ruler of any foreign country, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years. Under this bill it might be possible to reach the Emma Goldman type of criminals who lurk in the background and inspire their dupes to do murder. Senator Hoar also offers a resolution which directs the judiciary committee to inquire if congress has power to legislate for the punishment of anarchists who assassinate or attempt to assassinate the president, to prevent the teaching of anarchistic doctrine and to exclude all anarchists coming from foreign countries. It also inquires whether it is necessary or expedient to amend the Constitution so as to give congress power to establish a penal colony on some island to which anarchists shall be deported. In the direction of greater restrictions upon immigration, Senator Lodge has reintroduced his edu cation test bill, amended so that only ability to read is required. Senator Scott proposes that every immigrant secure from an American minister or consul a certificate of character. A decision of importance to the banking interests of the country, and which, if upheld by the courts, will in no small way swell the government's revenue, has been handed down by Commissioner of Internal Revenue Yerkes. In brief, he holds that all funds of a bank, excepting those set aside to pay salaries and deposits which are checked out, come under the term "capital and surplus," and are subject to an internal revenue tax of fifty dollars for a capital of $25,000 and two dollars for each additional $1,000. A decision of former Attorney-General Griggs exempted undivided profits and borrowed money carried by banks from this taxation. Many banks, on learning of this decision, failed to report any surplus, accounting for all moneys as either borrowed or undivided profits, and, consequently, exempt. One New York trust company claimed that a surplus of $11,000,000 was exempt under Mr. Griggs' interpretation of the law. Not only banks in New York, but financial institutions all over the country have taken a like view of the case. "My interpretation of the law," said Commissioner Yerkes, "is that undivided profits and borrowed moneys are part of a bank's surplus. My duty is to collect every cent due the government, and that is what I intend to do." The bankers will take the question into court in view of Mr. Griggs' decision. The ALBANY LAW JOURNAL has received from the publishers a copy of the holiday number of the "Trade-Mark Record." Of this number, it is no exaggeration to say that it is the most important, and, in some respects, the most beautiful publication ever issued in connection with the trade-mark interests of the country. The cover is an unique original design accepted after competition among leading It represents "Father Knickerbocker" knocking at the door of 1902 with proper festal emblems, illustrating the season. literary contents of the number are of as high order of merit as the artistic features. Included in the rich table of contents are leading articles as follows: artists of New York. The "The Commercial Privacy Rights of Public Perons," by the Editor; "A Trade-Mark and How It Is Registered," by J. W. Anderson, of the United States patent office; "Trade-Marks in Advertising," by Charles Austin Bates; "Trade-Mark Rights in the New Colonies," by the Associate Editor; "TradeMark Advance," by Hon. Francis Forbes; "TradeMarks for the Trans-Pacific Trade," by Prof. James L. Hopkins; "International Registration of TradeMarks," by M. Henri Morel, director of the international bureau at Berne, Switzerland; "Canadian Trade-Marks," by T. Brosseau, King's counsel; "London Letters," by J. E. Evans Jackson, Esq., and C. Urquhart Fisher, Esq.; "Words as Trade-Marks," by Dr. John Cutler, King's counsel, London; 'Humors of the Trade-Marks," by Samuel Inclement; "The Value of Trade-Marks," by S. A. Phillips, editor of The Advisor; "Competition in Business and Some Instances of Fraud," by George C. Lay, counselor-at-law; "Mr. Woolet's Startling Christmas Story;" "Introducing a Trade-Mark," by Samuel A. Hamel; "The Trade-Mark Parade," a poem illustrated with over 100 illustrations. The number is richly illustrated and contains other matters of gen eral interest. Editors Wise and Lichtenstein are to be heartily congratulated upon the success of their efforts. The law abolishing so-called common-law marriages, which was enacted by the legislature of New York at its last session, went into effect on January 1, 1902. It provides that a marriage which is not solemnized by a minister or other authorized person shall not be legal, unless the persons desiring to marry sign a written contract in the presence of at least two witnesses subscribing to the same. The contract must state the place of residence of each of the parties and witnesses and the date and place of marriage, and must be acknowledged by the parties and witnesses in the manner required for the acknowledgment of a conveyance of real estate to entitle the same to be recorded. Such contract shall be filed within six months after its execution in the office of the clerk of the town or city in which the marriage was solemnized. The new law further pro vides that no marriage claimed to have been contracted on or after January 1, 1902, within this State, otherwise than in this article provided, shall be valid for any purpose whatever, provided, however, that no such marriage shall be deemed or adjudged to be invalid, nor shall the validity thereof be in any way affected on account of any want of authority in any person solemnizing the same, if consummated with a full belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they were lawfully joined in marriage or on account of any mistake in the date or place of marriage or in the residence of either of the parties. An Irish judge recently commented on the ridiculous method at present adopted for ascertaining children's knowledge of the nature of an oath. He termed it "a ghastly farce," asking a child whether he knew what would happen to him if he told a lie, and accepting as satisfactory the invariable reply: "I would go to hell." There is truth in what the learned judge said, but all such criticism is useless, unless accompanied by a suggestion of some better way. The time at trials is generally too precious to admit of a more extended theological examination of the witness. The "invariable reply" is, no doubt, largely due to the fact of previous coaching on the subject, and may or may not be the child's real opinion or belief or indication as to whether he or she has any opinion or belief on the subject.Canada Law Journal. The recent effort of the eastern railroads to enjoin the ticket scalpers of Buffalo from dealing in special tickets issued by them on account of the Pan-American Exposition, which were, by their terms, untransferable, has been brought to naught by the application of the old maxim that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. In the case of Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company v. Frank (110 Fed., 689) the Circuit Court for the Western District of New York sustains the right of a common carrier to issue and sell special tickets at a reduced fare on condition of the purchaser's agreement that the ticket shall not be transferred, and the contention that the use of such a ticket by another is in violation of the contract, and is an actionable wrong. The court also sustains the contention that a railroad ticket broker may be enjoined from inducing a holder of such a ticket to violate his agreement by selling the return portion of the same. The defense, however, brought out the fact that the railroads issuing these tickets were members of the Trunk Line Association, formed for the purpose of preventing competition, and operated upon a plan for pooling and dividing the passenger receipts upon an agreed basis. Such a combination is illegal and in violation of the federal anti-trust law. For this reason the court refuses the relief asked for. Judge William E. Werner is to be the guest of Genesee, to be given at the Waldorf-Astoria, New honor at the annual dinner of the Society of the York, on Saturday, February eighth. The society is made up of residents of Rochester who lived formerly there or in the valley of the Genesee river. The dinner is given in honor of the elevation of Justice Werner to the bench of the Court of Appeals. It is expected that more than 100 residents of Rochester will accompany Justice Werner to the city, among whom will be A. J. Rodenbeck, mayor of Rochester; Congressman J. B. Parsons, William F. Balkam and George Moss. Job E. Hedges, presiAmong the dent of the society, will preside. speakers will be Chief Justice Alton B. Parker, of the Court of Appeals; David J. Hill, first assistant secretary of state; Supreme Court Justice Morgan J. O'Brien, of the Appellate Division, First Department, who has just been elected unanimously for a second term, and William B. Hornblower. An echo of the crusade of Carrie Nation is heard in the case of State v. Stark (66 Pacific, 243), in which the Supreme Court overrules the decision of the municipal courts, and holds that, although places where intoxicating liquors are sold are declared by statue to be common nuisances, this fact does not justify their abatement by any person without due process of law. Quoting from an old opinion by Chief Justice Shaw, the court says it is not lawful by the comomn law for any and all persons to abate a common nuisance, although the doctrine may have been sometimes cited in terms so general as to give countenance to this supposition. This right and power is never intrusted to individuals in general without due process of law. Gino C. Speranza, of New York, who has done much work in connection with the Italian immigration societies, said recently to a New York Evening Post reporter, that, in his opinion (which he said was shared by a good many criminal lawyers) the existing immigration laws, if thoroughly enforced, would accomplish all that a special law against anarchists could do. "A notorious anarchist is a criminal," he said, "and could be excluded as such. John Most, for instance, when he came to this country, had been in jail many times. As to the less conspicuous figures among the anarchists, believers merely in the doctrines, who have not made themselves conspicuous to the police, there is no possible way of identifying them. They feel no obligation to tell the truth to the representatives of a government, and they do not recognize the sanctity of an oath. Under the present law a suspicious character can be put under bond to keep the peace and kept under surveillance, so that he can be deported should he prove dangerous in this country. In framing a law it will hardly be possible to distinguish between the philosophical anarchists and the most incendiary type. It will be far better to exclude them under the existing provisions of the law than by a special enactment for their particular class. I am in favor of making the penalty for an assault upon the president heavier than it is at present." in Trinity Term 1837, and has been for many years, and still is, practicing in partnership with his son at Portsea and Southsea. A trial which has excited great sensation in Bavaria has, says the St. James Gazette, just ended in a sentence of death followed by another of penal servitude. The sentence is not without parallel nearer home. The house of commons, in regulating the law many years ago, so framed an act of parliament that the king was liable under it to serve out half the transportation sentence of every offender; and last year a judge in California sentenced a prisoner to imprisonment for "half his natural life." Even President McKinley once commuted a death sentence to one of ninety years' imprisonment, and in Sicily not long ago a man was convicted on sixtythree charges, being sentenced to the minimum period for each offense. His sentence reached out to 189 years; had the maximum penalty been imposed, he would have been called upon to serve 630 years! "Our Animal Friends," a humanitarian paper, published in Boston, says, in a recent issue: "We would commend to the attention of our readers a lucid and learned article on "Game as a Commodity of Commerce," in the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL for October, 1901. So long as commerce between the States is subject to regulation by the congress of the United States, State laws on this subject will be apt to fail of their object in the case above supposed. Whether a federal law could be so drawn as to meet the difficulty we are not quite sure. Therefore, in the present condition of things the only sure method Henry Vaughan, who pleaded guilty at the Linof avoiding this difficulty is to induce the legislacoln Assizes on Wednesday to breaking into a brewtures of the several States to pass laws forbidding the | ery company's offices, handed in, says the Daily export of game animals, dead or alive, beyond the Mail, a written statement in which he pointed out boundaries of the State; and the general enactment of such laws implies the creation of a widespread public opinion, which it is the never-ceasing duty of societies like ours to endeavor to create. The right of the State or its agents to compel vaccination has lately been the subject of much comment, and it was recently judicially passed upon by the Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of Matthews v. Board of Education (86 Northwestern, 1036). The board passed a rule excluding from the schools children who had not been vaccinated. The Michigan law requires, under penalty of fine or imprisonment, or both, that parents shall send their children to school. The plaintiff was a Christian Scientist, and refused to have his children vaccinated. The majority of the court held that it was beyond the power of the board to make, in the absence of an epidemic of smallpox, a continuing rule excluding from the schools children who had not been vaccinated, and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to admit the children of the plaintiff. English Notes. that with one exception all his criminal offenses had been committed on the premises of companies and associations. He argued that there was a distinction between robbing the widow and orphan and stealing a few pounds from a company. Mr. Justice Bigham said the composition did the prisoner great credit, but the sentence would be twelve months' hard labor. Two more masters of the King's Bench Division are about to retire, says the Law Journal. Mr. George Pollock, the senior master and king's remembrancer, has completed fifty years of service, having been appointed a master of the Court of Exchequer in 1851. He is the third son of Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1843. Mr. Charles Henry Walton, who is sixty-five years of age, has been a master for twenty-seven years, having been appointed a master of the Court of Exchequer in 1874. He is fifteen years younger than Mr. Pollock, and has seen twenty-three years less service. Mr. Walton, who belonged to the old order of special pleaders, entered as a student at the Inner Temple in 1857, but was not called to the bar until the year in which he was appointed a master. With regard to a statement that has been made We all remember the powerful appeal made a year that Mr. Arthur Hastie, of East Grinstead, who died or two ago by the late Lord Russell of Killowen at the age of eighty-six, and who was admitted a for a higher standard in legal education, and how, solicitor in Hilary Term 1838, was the oldest prac- even with his strenuous advocacy, the subject was ticing member of the profession, we are informed treated with the customary neglect by those in that Mr. Richard Joynes Emmerson, of Sandwich, authority, says the Law Times. Something has, inis in his ninetieth year, says the Law Times. He deed, been done within the past decade or so to was admitted in Michaelmas Term 1833, and has improve matters by the council of legal education, practiced at Sandwich continuously. He is now but we are compelled to agree with the Hon. F. M. clerk to the borough magistrates. Mr. William Finch, sometime judge of the New York Court of Pearce, of Portsea, aged eighty-seven, was admitted' Appeals, who, in the course of his presidential address to the New York State Bar Association at its last meeting, after referring to the lazy, slipshod system under which students might pick up legal knowledge half a century ago in the United States, proceeded as follows: "It is quite true that this crude and lax method of study was paralleled by that of the Inns of Court in England, which were long mere scenes of revel and festivity, and even yet do not require too much of the men upon their rolls." They certainly do not; and, while, as have said, something has been done at a vast expense to improve the purely legal curriculum, the standard of scholarship demanded in the case of those who cannot produce university credentials is still ludi crously low. we A marriage was, says the Daily Mail, arranged in court on Wednesday at the Maidstone Assizes. A laborer named James Hawkins, who was indicted for attempting to murder a young woman named Alice Young, whose throat he cut in a fit of jealousy, proposed marriage to her directly he entered the witness-box. She accepted him in affectionate terms. A sentence of three months with hard labor was imposed the lightest, the judge remarked, that he had ever given where a dangerous weapon had been used. The application of Miss Johnston, of Londonderry, to the benchers to be admitted as a student for the Irish Bar created a mild sensation at the Four Courts on the 25th ult., especially among the members of the northwest circuit, which Miss Johnston would presumably have joined if she had reached the height of her ambition. She is the daughter of Sir John B. Johnston, a merchant in, and a former mayor of, the city of Londonderry; and, though she does not possess the qualifications that some other Irish ladies have for a call to the bar, her application marks a stage in the course of events. The Royal University, which, since the appointment of the recent royal commission, is in the scales, admits women to all its degrees, and there are several learned doctors of law of the female sex belonging to that university. The three Queen's Colleges admit women to their classes and examinations, and in the College of Surgeons and Physicians they participate in all the privileges equally with men.- Law Times. Humorous Side of the Law. - Bankrupt No, I don't say that you say that. Counsel When was the receiver appointed? Bankrupt I don't know; I didn't appoint him! (Great laughter. Even the face of the dignified referee was illumined with a broad smile.) "I went into trade once in this city," said Baron Otto von Fritsch, of the Army and Navy Club. “After working eighteen dollars worth, I was summarily discharged, and when I went to the cashier I was told there was no money coming to me. "In the boarding-house where I was stopping was a young lawyer, who had taken a great fancy to me. He seemed to be greatly pained when he learned of my unfortunate experience, and said it was a shame to take advantage of a foreigner that way, and, if I did not mind, he would endeavor to collect the eighteen dollars owing me. "Go ahead,' said I. "A few days later my lawyer friend informed me that he had succeeded in collecting the money due me. "Good!' said I, looking expectant. I am glad you made those sharks give up.' "Yes,' said he, 'so am I. By the way, I never take a case for less than twenty-five dollars, so you owe me seven dollars. I shall be glad to have you remit at your earliest convenience.' "Yes," said the baron, as he touched the bell, "you Americans are certainly masters of finance."- New York Times. One day the Sligo people say a man from Roughley O'Byrne was tried in Sligo for breaking a skull in a row, and made the defense, not unknown in Ireland, that some heads are so thin you cannot be responsible for them. Having turned with a look of passionate contempt towards the solicitor who was prosecuting and cried: "That little fellow's skull, if ye were to hit it, would go like an egg shell," he beamed upon the judge, and said in a wheedling voice: "But a man might wallop away at your lordship's for a fortnight."- From The Celtic Twilight, by W. B. Yeats. At Harnett county (N. C.) Superior Court Judge Shipp presiding, the trial of a case had been protracted till near midnight. Will Murchison who was addressing the jury, thought to arouse them; so he said: "Gentlemen, I will tell you an anecdote." Instantly the jury, the judge and spectators pricked up their ears and were all attention, as Murchison was admirable in that line, had a fund of anecdote and no one could tell them better. He A valued correspondent in New York sends the then proceeded to tell one of the dullest, prosiest, ALBANY LAW JOURNAL the following: most pointless jokes possible. Everybody looked disappointed. The judge, leaning over, said in an unmistakable tone of disappointment: "Mr. At a recent meeting of creditors of an involuntary bankrupt, the following examination was had: Counsel for Creditors - Is there a receiver in Murchison, I don't see the point of that joke." charge of your business? "Nor I, either," was the reply, "but your honor told it to me: and as I thought the lack of appreciation must be due to my obtuseness, I concluded to give the joke a trial by jury." |