cused was illegal because made in Wisconsin by a deputy of the marshal of a New York district instead of the marshal of Wisconsin. Judge Shipman held this point not well taken, and also (so far as appears, obiter) that the district judge in New York who issued the warrant had jurisdiction to do so,

sympathy, and the untimely loss of so good a citizen and so learned and able a magistrate will be regarded with unanimous regret.

NOTES.

THE American Journal of Insanity for July contains

and to send the case for examination before a commissioner in New York. In the other cases the jurisdiction of the commissioner was not questioned. As to the address of the warrant to "James Mooney" we are confident that it is a very unusual method of address. And Mooney himself does not seem to have felt satisfied that it was all right, for he sought for but did not obtain a deputization from the Uni-husbandry and sheep raising, with the history of Fence ted States marshal at New Orleans.

an interesting article entitled "Lord Chief Justice Cockburn on the Responsibility of the Insane," with particular reference to his judgment in Banks v. Goodcapacity does not imply perfect sanity.The Washfellow, establishing the doctrine that testamentary burn and Moen Manufacturing Company, of Worcester, Mass. send us a pamphlet entitled, "The Fence Question in the Southern States, as related to general Customs, and laws pertaining thereto, and a view of the new farm system of the South, as shown in the Census of 1880." The frontispiece represents a flock of very well-conditioned sheep on one side of a barbed wire fence and a number of hungry and disappointed

The reason given for the hasty and secret transfer of the accused from the prison to the steamer, namely, the danger of a rescue, does not appear to be well founded, or even if it was so, it is not a suf-looking dogs on the other. At first we were inclined ficient one. There were no threats of a rescue, or other indications that one was intended, and we can hardly believe that there are enough sympa. thizers with Italian banditti in New York at present seriously to interfere with the execution of Federal process, even if they felt inclined to do so. While the proceedings in the Esposito case may have been technically unobjectionable, they indicate the necessity of a change in the statutes regulating practice in such matters.-ED. ALB. LAW JOUR.]

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.

THE

to suppose that this contained some covert and unhandsome allusion to lawyers and clients, but we soon discovered that the publication is an advertisement of the aforesaid barbed wire fence. The legal information about fences and the statement of the various statutes may be of use to lawyers who indulge in the luxury of farming. The Report of the Commissioner of Education, for the year 1879, contains very full and interesting statistics and information concerning the law schools, legal education, and admission to the bar.

A VERY PROPER DECISION. In notes of cases on page 302 of the October number of that excellent publication, the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, we learn that in the case of McDonald v. Minneapolis Lumber Company the court held that a mechanic's lien could not be con

HE following decisions were handed down, Tues- veyed from one lot to another by steam. We are not day, October 25, 1881:

Judgment affirmed with costs - Tuttle v. Hazard; Persch v. Cook; Millard v. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad Company; Perry v. Rollins; Smith v. Endres; The National Bank of Gloversville v. Place; Ackley v. Westervelt; Birch v. Jansen; Gilmore v. The Ontario Iron Company; Truax, assignee, v. Slater; Evans v. Rogers; Hart v. The Direct United States Cable Company; Earle v. David. Judgment affirmed

Abbott v. The People.- Judgment reversed and

new trial granted, costs to abide event-Doran v. The Franklin Fire Insurance Company; McPherson v. Cox; Chapman v. McCormick; The City National Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Phelps; Granger v. Craig.- Order affirmed and judgment absolute for respondent on stipulation with costs- Bishop v. Alcott; Tyng v. The Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Ohio. Orders of General and Special Terms reversed with costs - Hobart v. Hobart. Appeal dismissed with costs - -Walter v. Fellows.

in the least surprised by this decision. Ever since we were conveyed from the deck of a Mississippi passenger boat belonging to the opposition line, to an uncomfortable position on a snag at the edge of a morass, by virtue of a writ of assistance issued by a defective boiler, we have entertained some very decided notions concerning conveyances by steam. In an old publication it is stated that a Mr. Fulton steamed up the Hudson, but we do not regard this as a supporting authority, because to the present day on the Hudson, and particularly every winter near the State capital, very many persons get steamed up. How such persons acquire any lien upon the lots they take we do not care to discuss, inasmuch as the liens cannot be mechanics' liens. In the McDonald case the court held that a mechanics' lien on a lot could not be conveyed to another lot by steam. Now the correctness of this decision will appear clearly when we consider the improbability, if not impossibility, of making such a transfer by steam. The register's office might have been so conveyed away from the lot on which it reposed, but to so manage and control the steam that the building would alight on a particular lot, intact, is contrary to experience, and quite impossible; still more impossible is it to believe that the steam can select a particular CHARLES F. SANFORD. volume of records and the identical one containing the HARLES F. SANFORD, one of the Judges of the entry of the lien, and convey it to a particular vacant New York Supreme Court, died on the 21st ult., lot. Unquestionably the court was familiar with the aged 54 years. He was a man of liberal education and doctrine of chances, and very properly held that the culture, a good lawyer, and a very laborious and intel- conveyance by steam of a mechanic's lien from one ligent judge. Raised to the Superior bench in 1875, lot to another was so improbable as to justify a finding and discharging his judicial duties with acceptance that it could not be done. - Troy Daily Times. The until 1879, he then was compelled by failing health, above is very flattering to us, but if our esteemed coninduced by excessive work, to abandon his post, and temporary had only known that our journal is issued has been gradually sinking ever since. His sad condi-weekly instead of monthly, its law might have been tion has called out many expressions of sorrow and four times better in the past.-ED.

OBITUARY.

-

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, NOVEMBER 5, 1881.

CURRENT TOPICS.

He

only for the vacancy, and an election must be held for the office next week. It is believed that the election can legally he held, in spite of the lack of the customary notice; that the notice is merely customary, not essential; and that the people are not to be deprived of their right to an election by the misconstruction and omission of public officials. Perhaps Mr. Calvin will be elected. Having expressed our sense of the bad taste of the "banquet given by the lawyers in his honor some time ago, we feel bound to reiterate that he has proved an excellent surrogate. We like him better as a judge than as a banqueter or banquetee.

The most graphic account of the deliberations of a jury on which there are eleven obstinate men, that has ever come under our notice, is to be found in a story in the current number of the Century Magazine (Scribner's Monthly), entitled "Eli." The queer characters constituting the jury are admirably depicted, and the various arguments which the eleven brought to bear upon the one are narrated with a knowledge of human nature that led us for a moment to suspect that the author is a lawyer or has sat on a "hung" jury. Especially amusing is the device of the eleven to worry out the one by allowing ten to sleep and another to argue with him, by turns, all night. But after all, this fine image with head of gold has feet of clay. What is the evidence upon which the eleven are so ready to convict the prisoner of robbery? The offense charged is the robbery of a bank vault, the lock of which is found broken, but which experts say was first unlocked. Only two persons have keys, the

we have lost our chief judge after all! could resist the arguments of Mentor, but he succumbed to those of New York. This is one of the rare and fitting instances of the office persistently seeking the man, and is a remarkable evidence of the homage that public opinion pays to modesty, integrity, and unselfish talents. The unanimous approval with which his appointment has been received, without distinction of party, must be extremely gratifying to the recipient, but is deserved by the man who has sunk the partisan in the patriot, the politician in the magistrate. Mr. Folger's acceptance was unfeignedly and extremely reluctant, and emphasizes the unselfish rule of conduct which has always guided his public course. A good deal of injustice has unintentionally been done him by the newspapers by attributing motives for his action which did not influence him. It is not true that he has wearied of his judicial labors; on the contrary they are exactly to his taste and have grown easy by experience. Nor is it true that he has in view much less that he has bargained for- a seat ultimately on the Federal supreme bench. Respectable and elevated as is an associate justiceship of the United States, Mr. Folger never would have exchanged the chief judgeship of New York for it. His action was determined indirectly by the persistence with which the office has sought him-carry-president, and the prisoner, who had recently taken ing a strong impression that it was his duty to accept it and immediately by his warm friendship for the President and his sympathy with him in his trying position. Doubtless Mr. Folger will be the central figure of the new cabinet, and his influence in the National counsels will be very great, but we believe it will always be for good. His administration of the public finances will be honest and conservative. Wall street gamblers will get no sympathy or help from him would that he could sink

them all forever in a Red Sea of National wrath and contempt! His broad and patriotic views, his extensive political learning and experience, and his judicial impartiality will render him such a cabinet minister as few administrations are favored with, and he will continue to deserve the extraordinary public faith and confidence with which he assumes his new office. We shall miss him from our bench, but we really think it will be easier to fill his place there than to find his equal as chancellor of the exchequer. Our State will believe that his determination has been made for the public good and with the exercise of that rare judgment which has controlled him through life.

The Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the General Term of the Supreme Court, have determined that Surrogate Calvin's appointment was VOL. 24.- No. 19.

the cashier's place and performed his duties in his absence for a short time. On the night of the robbery, the prisoner, who was a fisherman, was seen at one o'clock coming across the fields from the direction of the bank with a large wicker basket slung over his shoulders. He said he had been eelspearing. The president swore that he himself did not rob the bank. This is all the implicating testimony reported. None of the plunder traced to the prisoner; no sudden affluence; no suspicious conduct; no confession or significant admission. The prisoner proved a good reputation. This was the evidence on which eleven men proposed to convict their reputable townsman ! On such a case a jury might possibly disagree, but it would be eleven to one the other way. Really, the gifted author should have taken legal counsel before he wrote this clever story, just as Bulwer did before he wrote "Night and Morning."

We are pleased to learn from New York city that the course of Roman law lectures begun last winter is to be repeated this coming winter, by Dr. Pincoffs, of the University of Leyden. We had occasion a year ago to notice the institution of this course, and remarked that it was a step in the right direction. We now hope that it will lead to a permanent chair of Roman or civil law in one of our

great universities. Dr. Pincoffs' essay on the uses of the study of Roman law, published in the American Law Review for September last, indicates his qualifications to treat of the subject; and to use Lord Campbell's language, shows that he is something more than "a mere lawyer."

In speaking of Mr. Snyder's "Great Speeches by

the doctor called on him next day, he showed no serious symptoms, nor any evidence of the attack." Judgment was directed for the defendant on the ground that no proof was made that the defendant knew that the dog was vicious. The defendant's counsel also insisted that the plaintiff was shamming hydrophobia, and that it was a case of blackmail-which was certainly very reprehensible in a letter carrier. But whether hysteria or imposition, it is a singular case, and the result shows that the plaintiff was "barking up the wrong tree."

THE

NOTES OF CASES.

THE case of Stack v. O'Hara, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, has received a fresh decision, October 3, 1881, 12 Pitts. Leg. Jour. (N. S.) 64. (See 20 Alb. L. Jour. 511; 21 id. 462.) It is held that "in the United States the Catholic Church is missionary, and those who enter its priesthood obligate themselves to serve the missions of the Diocese, under the obedience of the bishop. Both bishop and priest are bound to obey the laws of their church which are applicable to the missions in this country, and these laws define and limit the authority of the one and the obedience of the other. The bishop has power to appoint the priest to a mission and to recall him thence, the priest being

Great Lawyers," the London Law Times says "the book is disappointing. Mr. Snyder certainly gives us some great speeches by great lawyers; but he gives us also much that cannot come under that head. Instead of the masterpieces of Erskine, Brougham, and other world-renowned advocates, we have speeches by Pinkney, Wirt, Prentiss, Paul Brown, C. O'Conor, Stanton, Porter, Beard, and Black-names which are no doubt more familiar in the United States than in this country." Is not this rather provincial and insular? Does the Times think that Great Britain has produced the only great lawyers, and that only the familiar speeches of the acknowledged great British lawyers should be reproduced in such a collection? One would say that the "disappointment" at finding so many great lawyers in the United States ought to be agreeable to our contemporary. Unprejudiced critics would say that leaving Erskine-facile princeps—out of the question, there are several names in the Times' list not inferior to Brougham and other "world-removable at the will of the bishop; but the bishop renowned advocates." Pinkney was certainly one of the most all-accomplished advocates that ever lived; Wirt one of the most elegant; Prentiss one of the most eloquent; O'Conor is certainly one of the most learned, and Porter one of the most fertile and ingenious. Mr. O'Conor will hardly recognize himself under the description of "C. O'Conor." Perhaps the Times thinks he is some Fenian. The Times ought to be glad to be made acquainted with these Americans, and to remember that heroes lived after as well as before Agamemnon.

should use his right of removal only for grave reasons. Removal may be made without assigning cause, without supposition of wrong done by the priest, and the priest is not entitled to a previous

trial as he would be if accused of an ecclesiastical

offense; and if he feel aggrieved his remedy is by recourse to the bishop's superior. Where the bishop officially removes a priest it will be presumed that it was for sufficient cause, and the priest will not be entitled to recover damages of the bishop, unless the evidence shows that he was wrongfully and unlawfully removed from his charge. The profession of priest or minister in any denomination is held subject to its laws; the priest acquired it by com

and authority of his church; he has no property in his profession that shields him from the consequences of his broken vows and compacts. It is a universal rule that one who becomes a member of any church thereby consents to be governed by its rules and laws, and he cannot justly claim to have suffered wrong by the enforcement of such rules or laws upon himself and his property. Courts will not interfere with the internal police and discipline of churches so long as they keep within the reasonable application of their own rules, which were known, or might have been known upon inquiry, to the members at the time they became members. Where the removal of a priest is in accord with the rules and laws of his church, which were known to

In Pottle v. Wilberforce, a recent English county court case, the action was for injuries inflicted by the bite of a dog. The plaintiff was a letter car-pact, and is not exempt from the proper discipline rier, the defendant was a canon. The Law Journal says: "The plaintiff's case was that, on June 27, he was delivering letters at the deanery, defendant's residence, when a colley flew at him and bit him in the thigh. He finished his delivery, and then went to his club doctor, who cauterised the wound and attended him for a month. During this period he was affected by symptoms which, if genuine, were most alarming. He barked like a dog, attempted to bite persons who came near him, foamed at the mouth, and in other ways appeared to be mad. Canon Wilberforce was communicated with; and being in London as a witness in the Mabel Wilberforce case, he telegraphed to direct that all possible attention should be paid to the patient, but that it was probably only hysteria, and not hy-him when he was ordained, it is a result of his condrophobia, the dog being perfectly healthy. From this alarming condition the plaintiff recovered very soon, and went out by the water to walk; and when

tract, and is not contrary to the law of the land." The court cite Judge Redfield's note to Hennessy v. Walsh, 15 Am. Law Reg. 264. Mercer and Gordon,