A city ordinance forbidding peddling within the city limits without a license and prescribing a punishment for its violation, is not in contravention of either the State or Federal Constitution. Hart v. State, p. 103: To constitute larceny the taking must be felonious at the time. One snatching money from a person and retaining it without consent of such person is not necessarily guilty of larceny. Vaughn v. Ferral, p. 182: One about to purchase a promissory note exhibited the same to the maker who said it was all right, and there was no defense to it and it would be paid. Held, that the maker was estopped from setting up that the note was altered. Town of Centreville v. Woods, p. 192: A town is liable to one injured by a defect in its streets, notwithstanding such defect was caused by a third person. Alexander v. N. W. Chr. Univ., p. 466: A real estate broker, acting for both vendor and vendee in the sale of property, held entitled to receive compensation from both vendor and vendee. Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Ferguson, p. 495: While a telegraph company may refuse to transmit an indecent message, it may not one couched in proper terms on the ground that it is in furtherance of an immoral purpose. Pittsb., Cinc. & St. L. Rwy. Co. v. Vandyne, p. 576: A railroad company may refuse to carry a person so intoxicated as to be disgusting, offensive or annoying, though he have a ticket, but may not refuse one slightly intoxicated. The reporting is well done, the index full, and the table of cases cited carefully prepared.

COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.

duties, inasmuch, in some counties no "judgmentbook" is kept, while in others the clerks refuse to make up a roll except upon filing a judgment, and also attaching thereto a certified copy thereof. For instance, a judgment in foreclosure is granted at Special Term, the court writes at the end a direction to the clerk to enter, the clerk then makes a copy, certifies the copy, and annexes both to the other papers making the roll, but does not enter either in any book.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary says that a judgment is the decision or sentence of the law by a court, and the old Code, section 245, defined it to be the final determination of the rights of the parties.

The idea of the average county clerk is, that a judgment is something made by a court or judge, in writing, to be filed in his office. On the contrary, it is something which, having been determined by the court, is to be reduced to writing and recorded as the judgment of the court by the clerk, the same as he records a verdict, and how he shall enter or record it is shown by a written direction of the court. The court indicates the judgment and the clerk enters it, in all cases when the court is called upon to decide any thing. In other cases the law fixes the judgment and the clerk enters it.

Under the Revised Statutes I apprehend the practice was to draw what was called the record of the judgment, and, after obtaining the direction of the court, when necessary, the clerk signed and filed it, whereupon it stood "entered." 3 R. S. (6th ed) 619, § 10. But the old Code required the clerk to keep a judgment-book (independent of the docket), and to enter all judgments therein and to annex a copy of the

THE following opinions were handed down Friday, judgment (as entered in the book) to the roll.

June 21, 1878:

Bostwick v. Frankfield, Nos. 262-265, order affirmed and judgment absolute for defendant on stipulation, with costs; opinion by Miller, J.- Department of Public Parks, In re application of, ordered, that the remittitur be amended so as to give costs to neither party in this court; no opinion.-Hatch, In re petition of, No. 422, appeal dismissed, with costs to Hatch against Bowes; opinion per Curiam.-Hebrew Benevolent Society, In re petition of, motion denied, with $10 costs; no opinion.Mead, In re petition of, No. 416, order affirmed; opinion by Miller, J. -Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Livingston, No. 242, judgment reversed and new trial granted; opinion by Earl, J.-Parker v. City of Cohoes, No. 253, order affirmed and judgment absolute for respondent on stipulation, with costs; on opinion of General Term. -Roe v. Conway, No. 215, judgment reversed and new trial ordered; opinion by Miller, J.- -Woodworth v. Payne, Nos. 131-146, judgment affirmed; opinion by Miller, J.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ENTERING JUDGMENTS.

To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

SIR Since the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure there has been considerable discussion as to the correct practice in making up a judgment roll and entering a judgment. In some cases the county clerks have, it seems to me, entirely misapprehended their

Here the practice under the Revised Statutes and the Code became mixed. No judgment-book was kept, and it having been held unnecessary for the clerk to sign the judgment, he has contented himself with filing in his office the judgment (as it is erroneously called), which is usually handed him by the attorney.

The Code of Civil Procedure retains the provision that the clerk shall keep (§ 1236) a judgment-book'and shall enter therein all final judgments. Sections 1237, 1276 and 1354 provide for the manner of making up the roll in different cases in each of which "a certified copy of the judgment " is required. The only distinction between the two Codes seems to be in the word certified. It seems, therefore, perfectly clear that the correct practice is this: The clerk must keep a judgment-book and enter therein (i. e., write out) the judgment of the court. In litigated cases the decision will inform him how he is to draw the judgment. In partition, foreclosure and the like cases, the judgment is determined by the formal direction of the court to the clerk to enter (in the judgment-book) that form of a judgment which is usually prepared and handed to the court, while upon jury trials, defaults, etc., the judgment is to be entered in the book by the clerk as each case may require. Then under the new Code the clerk must make a certified copy of the judgment so entered in the book, and attach it to the pleadings, etc., and thus make up the "roll."

In practice, the attorney for the successful party should draft a judgment (in proper cases he obtains the direction of the court to enter). He then presents it to the clerk, who copies it into the judgmentbook. The judgment thus becomes "eutered." Then

the clerk can affix the draft to the roll, certify it to be a copy, and the "roll" is complete. The great variety of practice and views upon this subject has induced me to jot down these notes with the hope that they may aid in establishing a uniformity of practice consistent with the law.

Yours, etc.,

PORT RICHMOND, S. I., June 24, 1878.

NOTES.

SUBSCRIBER.

tars fixed in the wall adjoining the consulting-room by their noise caused him grave inconvenience and annoyance, and commenced an action to restrain the continuance of the nuisance. The fact of the nuisance was scarcely disputed, but the defendant's contention was that he had acquired, first, a prescriptive right to commit the nuisance, and secondly, under section 2 of the Prescription Act, a right by user for more than twenty years. The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that this was an easement incapable of interruption within the authority of Webb v. Bird, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 841, and one of which he could not presume a grant,

N the Court of Appeals on the 20th inst. Hon. Henry and, consequently, that the defendants had not ac

It. Davis, of New York, presented a memorial of quired a title by Prescription. Until the erection of

the late Hon. Samuel A. Foote, which was the occasion

of remarks by members of the bench and bar present.

Mr. Justice Miller of the United States Supreme Court has been quite ill recently, and has undergone a painful surgical operation. He is now better and in a fair way to recovery.

In reply to a question as to whether a failure on the part of a justice of the peace to give a bond in compliance with the act of the last Legislature, vacates his office, says that it is his opinion that no such consequence would follow such omission; but he says, "it may be argued, and is perhaps a fair construction of the act, that official duties shall not be performed by a justice in office unless he shall within sixty days give the bond required. At any rate it is a statutory duty imposed upon justices for the benefit of the public, and ought to be complied with by those officers."

The attorney-general of this State, in reply to an inquiry from the acting superintendent of the banking department, says: "In answer to your communication of this date relative to the construction to be given to the 2d section of chapter 347 of the Laws of 1878, amending the Savings Bank Law, I have the honor to say that the section probably fails to express what was intended by the person who drew it. It would seem to have been intended to limit the aggregate deposits by any individual in a savings bank to three thousand dollars; but that is not the necessary construction of the language used. It bears quite as properly the construction that any single deposit shall not exceed three thousand dollars. The language is so indefinite that, in my opinion, you will be justified in holding that aggregate deposits in excess of three thousand dollars and not in excess of the limitation prescribed by section 23 of the act of 1875 (ch. 371) will not be deemed violations of this section. The clear and precise language of the act of 1875 restricts the aggregate amount of deposits' to the sum mentioned in that act. If the Legislature by the section in question intended to restrict the aggregate deposits to three thousand dollars, it is fair to presume similarly accurate language would have been employed."

A novel kind of easement was claimed in the English case of Sturges v. Bridgman, before the Master of the Rolls on the 3d inst. The plaintiff, a physician, on the erection of a consulting-room in his garden found that the use by the defendant of two pestles and mor

the new room there had been no nuisance; and how could the plaintiff before that time have prevented the waves of sound from passing over the garden? He could not enter on the defendant's premises, and so commit a trespass, to abate the nuisance, and there was no other way in which the acquisition of the right could have been prevented. He also thought that the easement of the passage of sound was not within the second section of the Prescription Act; it was not an easement which would "be enjoyed or derived upon, over, or from the land" of another. It was very much like the above case, where a person claimed a right to the uninterrupted enjoyment of the currents of air in motion to his windmill. The plaintiff was entitled to a perpetual injunction.

A correspondent of the Pall Mall Guzette writing from Valencia, says: "There still survives in this city a very ancient tribunal which has exercised jurisdiction without a break for nearly a thousand years. Just outside the city, extending eastward to the Mediterranean and southward to the Lake of Albufera, is the plain known as the Huerta de Valencia. This plain, which covers nearly ten square miles, was at one time covered by the sea, but since the time of the Arabs it has been reclaimed, and has been converted by means of irrigation into one of the most fertile spots in the peninsula. The Huerta is traversed by eight main canals (acequias), which have an infinite number of small branches; and by this means the land is provided with an abundant supply of water. There are appointed times for the supply of water to each district, the signal for opening and closing the dykes being given by the great bell in the cathedral tower of Valencia. Agents are appointed to see that these arrangements are strictly carried out, and any infraction of them is brought before the tribunal to which I referred above. This tribunal, known as the "Tribunal of the Waters," is composed of eight members, who are elected by the eight divisions of the Huerta, and holds its sittings at noon every Thursday under the porch of Valencia Cathedral, the chapter of which is bound to provide it with a bench. All disputes which may have arisen during the past week are laid before the tribunal by word of mouth, neither the complainant nor the defendant being allowed to employ counsel, and so great is the respect felt for its decisions, that since its institution by the Arabs in 920, no instance has been recorded in which the defeated party has appealed from it to the ordinary jurisdiction of the country. I may add that the Huerta contains sixty-three villages and hamlets, with a total population of nearly eighty thousand.