Page images

his father. The peculiarity of this list, which might be extended with little trouble, lies in the eminence of these six-and-twenty names it contains. If they were omitted from literary history, Italian and German poetry would be nowhere, France would be robbed of one of its greatest and most national poets, English poetry would lose its father, and in all respects be very appreciably poorer. If less classic names in poetical history are taken, such as Talfourd, Macaulay, Bryant and Barry Cornwall, the list might be infinitely extended; and, if filial relationship to the legal profession be considered, as in the case of Wordsworth, the close connection between poetry and law will look such a matter of course that the few eminent exceptions will only tend to prove the rule. Milton was the son of a scrivener. There is no need to indorse the fancy that Shakespeare may have been a law clerk, or to suggest that Dante might have been influenced by a residence at the great legal university of Bologna. But there is another list strikingly to the purpose-the long roll of great lawyers who, like Cicero, Sir Thomas More, Lord Somers, Blackstone and Sir William Jones, have found flirtation with the Muses no impediment to their marriage with the law. It may be that this close connection of two seemingly irreconcilable pursuits is due to some rule of contrast; or is it that fiction, romance and verbiage afford to poetry and law a common standing-ground?"

A New York lay contemporary states that in the case of the People ex rel. Walker v. The Court of General Sessions, which was the dog treadmill case, corner of Broadway and Houston street, where Walker, the proprietor, was convicted and fined $25 for cruelly treating a dog, the general term of the Supreme Court on certiorari have unanimously affirmed the conviction. Judge Davis, who writes the opinion, after disposing of the technical points raised, says: "On the merits of this case there appears to be no reason for interfering with the judgment. Although 'a dog is not a beast of burden,' yet it is not cruelty to train and subject him to any useful purpose. His use upon a 'treadmill,' or an inclined plane,' or in any mode by which his strength or docility may be made serviceable to man is commendable and not criminal, but his abuse while so employed, whenever it amounts to cruelty, is a crime, and punishable precisely under the same circumstances as the cruel usage of the higher animals. Evidence enough was given on the part of the prosecution to show harsh aud unreasonable treatment by the relator of his dog, producing unnecessary pain and suffering, and it was for the court below to determine from the conflicting evi, dence whether the alleged cruelty was established. We think the suit should be dismissed and the proceedings of the Special Sessions affirmed.

The London Law Times of April 24, says that " Sunday, being the first Sunday in Easter term, some of Her Majesty's judges, in accordance with an ancient custom, attended in State the afternoon service at St. Paul's Cathedral. The lord mayor, accompanied by the lady mayoress, and attended by the sword and mace bearers, and the city marshal, went from the Mansion house to the cathedral in his carriage drawn by four hourses to meet their lordships. All the civic dignitaries wore their distinctive robes of office, and each carried a bouquet. A large number of the common council in their mazarine gowns likewise attended

the service. The judges present were the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Brett, Mr. Justice Archibald, Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Justice Field, and Mr. Justice Huddlestone, and with them came Mr. Serjeant Robinson, and Mr. Serjeant Cox. On the arrival of their lordships a procession, headed by the choir and clergy of the cathedral, and the corporation authorities, escorted them to their stalls. The sight altogether was extremely picturesque and attracted a vast congregation."

Ex-Chief Justice George W. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, died at Rome recently. He was born at Bethany, Wayne county, Penn., in 1809; he was educated at Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y., where he was a class-mate of Horatio Seymour, and Henry S. Randall; he commenced to study law in 1830 at his native place; and in 1852 he became Supreme Court Judge. He held other judicial positions and was member of congress. In recent years he has been devoted to antiquarian researches.- At the annual election of officers of the New York Law Institute on Monday, the following officers were chosen: President, Charles O'Conor; Vice-Presidents, Charles Tracy, Samuel Blatchford, Joseph H. Choate; Corresponding Secretary, Benjamin D. Silliman; Recording Secretary, Joseph S. Bosworth. Other officers were also elected and committees were appointed.--District Attorney Phelps states that he, as well as Recorder Hackett and City Judge Sutherland, is of opinion that the election of an additional judge of the Court of General Sessions of New York city, the bill providing for which has just been signed by the Governor, is a public necessity, and will be productive of much benefit.

A story illustrative of the advantages of studying law by cases, and the complaints which are sometimes made of the uncertainty of the law, used to be told by an eminent lawyer of Massachusetts, whose name is still associated with many of the pleasant anecdotes which used to be repeated at the social meetings of the bar, and may not be wholly without point in the present phases of legal science. On his returning to his office one day, he found his table loaded with books upon which a student in his office seemed to be diligently engaged. Before he could have a chance to inquire as to the subject of his investigation, the student broke out with an expression of surprise and astonishment to find the law so defective. To an inquiry what led to such a sweeping remark, the student informed Mr. B. that, in his absence, a client from a neighboring town had come into the office, and told him that a man had just got on to his horse and rode him off, and he wanted to know how he could get him back, or get satisfaction for his loss? He had thereupon gone to work and looked into the index of every law book in the office, to find something about "horse" or "saddle," and was surprised to find that the law had made no provision for either of them. He had, therefore, become satisfied that the client was without remedy, and had so informed him, and he had gone home on foot. It is needless to say that Mr. B. informed his student that a lawyer sometimes was able to settle a question about a specific article, by a course of reasoning drawn from general principles, although the law writers had been so culpably negligent as to omit to name that particular article. And, thereupon, the student gravely concluded that the index of a law book was not always the surest mode of settling legal principles in their application to particular cases.

All communications intended for publication in the LAW JOURNAL should be addressed to the editor, and the name of the writer should be given, though not necessarily for publication.

the warrant. The court, therefore, declined to express an opinion on the sufficiency of the evidence upon the hearing before the commissioner, and the

Communications on business matters should be ad- prisoner was remanded to the custody of the mar

dressed to the publishers.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, MAY 22, 1875.


IN an able article in the Independent, Dr. Spear

discusses "State Citizenship," under the United States Constitution. After reviewing the constitutional provisions relating to the subject and the adjudications of the Supreme Court, Dr. Spear comes to the conclusion that State citizenship lies entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the general government, with the exception of those restraints which the constitution imposes upon the powers of the States in relation to the privileges and immunities of such citizenship. As a consequence, the only offenses in regard to which congress can legislate are those that fall under its jurisdiction either by an express or necessarily implied power, derived from the federal constitution. It is the business of the State to

punish all other offenses, according to its discretion; but if they fail to do this, congress is not thereby

invested with power to do what is omitted. Dr. Spear says that if we "once concede that congress can exercise State powers in respect to the citizens of a State whenever that State fails properly to exercise its own powers, this one concession is the end of the governmental system which the federal convention framed and the people adopted." He shows that the restrictions in the federal constitution, being directed to the States and to these only, can have no application to the offenses and personal wrongs which individuals may commit against each other in the several States. They hence bestow upon congress no power to legislate in respect to these

offenses and wrongs.

On Tuesday Judge Blatchford rendered the decision of the United States Circuit Court in the case of Carl Vogt, involving the question whether the federal courts have the power to revise the action of the United States commissioner in holding an accused person to await the president's warrant of extradition. The court holds that in an extradition case no one can revise the opinion of the commissioner except the president. If the president should be of opinion that the evidence taken before the commissioner was not sufficient to sustain the charge, then it would be his duty to withhold the warrant of extradition. If he should be of opinion that it was sufficient, then it would be his duty to grant VOL. 11.- No. 21.

shal. But the indefatigable counsel of Vogt have obtained a writ of habeas corpus from a judge of the New York Supreme Court, with a view of raising some other question in the case. We must say that the persistency and ingenuity with which this man's case is conducted is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the history of criminal justice.

It will be remembered that in February last, Dion Boucicault, the author of the drama called "the Shaughraun," procured an injunction against the proprietor of the Theater Comique, in New York, restraining him from placing upon the stage of that theater a drama entitled "Skibbeeah," on the ground that it had been plagiarized from "the Shaughraun.” A demurrer was afterward filed by defendant, and it was asked that the case be dismissed because the bill did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The points arising on demurrer were argued on Monday in the United States Circuit Court at New York, Justice Hunt presiding. It appears that the bill alleges generally that the complainant has complied with all the provisions of the Revised Statally that he duly deposited in the mail, before publiutes relating to copyright, and then alleges specific

cation of the dramatic composition called "the Shaughraun," a printed copy of the title thereof, addressed to the librarian of congress, and that the librarian duly recorded the name of the drama. No other allegation of compliance with the requirements of the law is made. Now, by the copyright law it is required not only that a copy of the title be sent to the librarian, but that within ten days after publication two copies of the composition be deposited. The defendant raises the point that, although the deposit of the title is alleged in the bill, there are no allegations that the copies were deposited except by the general averment of compliance with the law. It is contended that the author of a play which is put upon the stage is not protected until the copyright is completed by the deposit of the copies. The decision was reserved.

By an amendment to the California penal code it is provided that, in certain cases where the jury render a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity, the court may afterward order a jury to be summoned to inquire whether the defendant continues insane, and that in case the defendant shall be found still insane, he shall be confined in an insane asylum. Under this provision a jury was summoned to determine the mental condition of Mrs. Hannah Smythe, who shot General Cobb several months ago, and was

acquitted on the ground of insanity. The witnesses who came before this jury believed Mrs. Smythe to be then sane, and testified that she had appeared easier and more rational since she shot the general. One of her children testified that she believed that her mother had always been sane. It seems that the object of Mrs. Smythe's violence survived the shooting, and the question was asked her if she intended to molest him any more. To this she responded: "No; I got enough of that." The jury found that she did "not continue to be insane," and she was discharged from custody.

It appears that there is not much prospect of a fusion of the two branches of the legal profession in England. Even Lord Selborne, who is one of the most advanced law reformers in Great Britain, opposes the change. In his speech in the House of Lords on the introduction of a bil. to establish a school of law in London, he said it had been imputed

to him and to those with whom he acted that they

ing to the belligerent relations. There is a disposition to shape negotiations between particular nations, so as practically to facilitate legislation for the world. Mr. Angell mentions quite a number of important indications in favor of the improvement of international law. He refers to the efforts toward international codification and arbitration which are being made in this country and in Europe, but cautions the supporters of the movement against expecting too much. The field of arbitration, he maintains, is limited, and this remedy cannot prove efficacious in preventing all wars. Nevertheless, Mr. Angell thinks it one of the most favorable characteristics of our time that there is a marked tendency of publicists and even of diplomatists to meet in associations for conference on grave questions of international law.

The liability of a person surrendered under an extradition treaty on one charge to be arrested or

prosecuted on another is likely to be a question in the case of Lawrence, the silk smuggler, whose exwished to break down the lines of demarkation which tradition was procured upon a charge of forgery. now separate the barrister from the attorney and It is said by some that he will have to be tried on solicitor, and to introduce the American principle of that charge or not at all. District Attorney Bliss, indiscriminate practice. But on every occasion he however, is reported to be of the opinion that Lawhad expressed himself as strongly and decidedly in favor of maintaining the distinction now existing specified in the warrant of extradition. An authorrence may be tried for a crime other than that But Lord Selborne takes a very liberal view of legality in this matter is Adriance v. Lagrave, decided in education, for he says that an institution of law would lose half its value if it were narrow or exclusive; and that whatever instruction was given should be open to all, leaving men to choose for themselves what they would receive, but without attempting to draw the line between those who were preparing to be barristers or solicitors. His principle was that legal education, to be put on a proper basis, should not run narrowly into two grooves of mere preparation for the bar and mere preparation for attorneys and solicitors. Lord Selborne urged the advantages of a good legal education upon all persons who were able to take a course in law, whether they intended to enter the profession or not.

the New York Court of Appeals not long since. There a person was brought to this country from France by warrant of extradition and it was held that he was liable to be arrested at the suit of a creditor who had taken no part in the extradition

proceedings. Church, C. J., delivered the opinion and quoted approvingly the language of Benedict, J., in Caldwell's Case, 8 Blatch. 131: "And I cannot say that the fact that the defendant was brought within the jurisdiction by virtue of a warrant of extradition for the crime of forgery affords him any legal exemption from prosecution for other crimes by him committed." It seems that in France the question has been considerably discussed and adjudicated. In one case it was decided as a matter of principle, that an accused person should

President Angell, of Michigan University, read a paper before the American Social Science Associa-only be tried for the offense for which he was surtion last week at Detroit, on the "Progress of International Law." He is of opinion that, after giving due weight to the obstacles in the way of the progress of international law, the present aspect of affairs is very encouraging. He thinks publicists are more and more lifting themselves, in their discussions, above the inspiration of merely national feeling, and are considering their great themes with the spirit of judicial impartiality. A substantial advantage is secured in the relative increase of international legislation on subjects belonging to the peaceful relations of States as compared with those belong

rendered, except by his express consent. The minister of justice intervened and said, "that a criminal could acquire no right against the justice of his country." If a provision is inserted in the treaty under which extradition is procured to the effect that the accused shall have immunity from detention for any purpose other than that for which he is surrendered, then, of course, he must be allowed to return when the remedy for the particular offense is exhausted. The Court of Appeals holds that in the absence of such a provision he is amenable to other processes.

distance of five miles, on a wet night. The wife caught cold and became severely ill. The court held that it was proper to compensate the plaintiffs for their personal inconvenience in having to walk home but not for the illness of the wife, which was a consequence too remote. Damages were allowed to the extent of £10 for the personal inconvenience. In speaking of the illness of the wife caused by the walk, Mellor, J., said: “If, in walking home, she had put her foot into a pool of water, and when she got home, had omitted to take proper means to prevent

recover damages from the railway company for an illness so caused would be to lay down a very dangerous rule indeed." And all the judges were of opinion that, on general principles, the illness of the wife was an injury too remote.

We have not taken the trouble to enumerate the cases in which Mr. Bergh and his society for the prevention of cruelty to animals have appeared as prosecutors recently. But some of them we have noticed in this journal, considering them of great novelty and of no little importance. An argument was had on Tuesday in the general term of the New York Common Pleas in the case of Davis v. Bergh et al., in which an injunction was sought restraining the defendants from interfering with the business of the plaintiff, who was a hog slaughterer. Judge Larremore had denied a motion to make the in-catching cold in consequence, to say that she could junction permanent and Mr. Davis had appealed to the general term. Mr. Gerry, of counsel for the defendants, characterized the action as an attempt by persons fearing criminal prosecution to induce a court of equity to intervene and restrain the agents of the society from making arrests. Mr. A. Oakey Hall, for the plaintiff, made the remark that for Mr. Bergh to undertake to erect by his officers and agents and by himself courts of pie poudre for instantaneous and summary justice, would be against the genius of our institutions and our constitution. said that it was fortunate for the people of New York that the president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animais is a man of calm judgment, of cool discrimination, utterly void of malice, insensible to social indignities or newspaper criticism, and who does his duty as a humanitarian without regard to any thing but his own high sense of honor and of public advantage. Nevertheless, the time might come when another president may be a man who is in face, figure and action a Don Quixote - one who may be more or less insane on the subject of cruelty to animals.



HE case of Hobbs and wife v. The London Southwest-
ern Railway Co., to which we referred recently,
presents the law of liability of railroads for damages
arising from carrying passengers to the wrong place.
Cockburn, C. J., Blackburn, Mellor and Archibald,
JJ., delivered opinions in this case and it was very
fully considered. Lord Cockburn holds that if a car-
rier undertakes to put down a passenger at a certain
place, and does not put him down at that place but
puts him down somewhere else, it must have been
in the contemplation of the parties that the passen-
ger must obtain some other means of getting home.
If he can get other means he may take them and
make the carrier liable for the expense so incurred by
him; but if no other means can be found, then the
carrier must compensate him for the personal incon-
venience which the absence of those means has
caused. In the present case Hobbs and wife with
their two children were set down at a wrong station by
the company's negligence, and they were unable to
procure a conveyance. They had to walk home a

In Carter & Co. v. Philadelphia Coal Co., 1 Week. Not. Cas. 384, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the question how far evidence of custom or usage is admissible to interpret a contract. The suit was brought to recover back certain commissions claimed by defendants, and allowed to them on a previous settlement. It appears that defendants, who did business at Philadelphia, managed the affairs of plaintiff company and sold coal for them; that in doing so they employed S. & Co., as brokers, to make sales of coal to the P, & R. railroad company, Plaintiff company now claims that the employment of the brokers was unauthorized, and that the commissions to the amount paid to the brokers should be recovered back. Defendant offered to show that it was the usual and customary method of the Philadelphia coal trade to sell coal through the agency of brokers, to whom a commission was paid; that defendants sold largely to the P. & R. railroad company through S. & Co., and that the sales so effected could not have been made in any other way. This offer was rejected, and the court on appeal held that the rejection was error. The court said: "It is not necessary to prove all the elements of a custom necessary to make law; the object here is to interpret a contract. The usages of a particular trade or business are presumed to be known to those engaged therein. They may, therefore, in the absence of any express stipulation inconsistent therewith, be supposed to have entered into the understanding of the parties in making the contract; they furnish a most valuable aid in arriving at the mutual assent of the parties, and, when not contrary to law, are admissible in evidence. Lewis v. Marshall, 7 Mann. & Gr. 729; United States v. Duval, 1 Gil. 372; 2 Greenl. Ev., § 251; Furniss v. Hone, 8 Wend. 247; Outwater v. Nelson, 29 Barb. 29; Girard Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Stephenson, 1 Wright, 293; Helme v. The Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 11 P. F. Smith, 107; McMasters v. The Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 19 id. 374.


THE HE most gigantic system of robbery known to our times is life insurance. It is also the most despicable, for it takes advantage of the best impulses of human nature. The man who insures his life generally does it, not with the view of making money for himself, but for the purpose of making a provision for those whom he loves. We have no sympathy with men who fall victims to any of the organized schemes for robbing those who are in mad haste to be rich-stock-jobbing, lotteries, and the like but the law owes it to itself and to humanity | to compel life insurers to be moderately honest. These corporations are the creatures of the law, and the law ought to prevent their preying on the community.

Our attention has been freshly called to this matter by the information that a very important bill in relation to life insurance companies has reached a third reading in the lower house of our present legislature. If we are correctly informed, this bill authorizes the withdrawal of more than $3,000,000 deposited by the life insurance companies with the State insurance department as partial security for the payment of their losses. The newspapers have been so busy in declaring Mr. Beecher guilty beforehand, that they have found no opportunity to say a word against this monstrous job. The New York Graphic says: "As is usual with jobs of this sort, the newspaper correspondents have avoided saying any thing about it, although the bill affects the interests of every man who holds a life insurance policy issued by a New York company." Even the New York Times, which so plumed itself on its exposure of Tweed, fills its columns day after day with articles about the Beecher trial so indecent that its editor ought to be sent to prison for contempt, so anxious is it lest the cause of morality should suffer, but has not a word to say about this job. We well understand why the legislative correspondents of the metropolitan press are dumb on the subject, but we should suppose that the editors in chief would also want to be quieted. It is notorious that, at the commencement of every session, the metropolitan companies make up a formidable "pool" to fight off hostile legislation, and thus far it has answered its purpose effectually. We have no doubt that a quite numerous crowd of speculators derive a handsome income by introducing or threatening to introduce hostile bills, and being reluctantly bought off by the companies. We have vainly endeavored to induce the legislature to pass a bill compelling these companies to set up the defense of fraud or misrepresentation in the procural of the policy, within a reasonable time- a measure that is most reasonable and most necessary and we may keep on doing so, we presume, in vain; the lobby is too strong for the lawyers.

The proposed bill strikes at the very foundation of the solvency and security of these companies. Many companies now are in such condition that the only reliance of their policy-holders is on these deposits with the insurance department. Let this fund be diminished or impaired, and many insured will be deprived of their last resource for reimbursement. Of course, no earthly reason can be given why the bill should pass, at least none addressed to the intellect. It is a bold, shameless and outrageous swindle, and so it has reached its third reading almost unnoticed. It may pass; we suppose the insurance companies have money enough to corrupt all the newspapers and buy a sufficient number of legislators, and this job is worth a great deal of money to the companies. But we can say to the assemblymen who shall vote for this scheme, that they will be watched and marked, and the probability is that they will never get another chance for similar thieving; certainly not if the votes of the policy-holders of this State can prevent it. The system of life insurance robbery in this State has reached such dimensions that the public patience is exhausted. There are to-day in this whole country, in our opinion, not many above a score of solvent, reliable, honest life insurance companies. Scores of the companies were conceived in fraud and born in iniquity- mere contrivances to make fat salaries for certain drones and incompetents, and enrich a few directors. Many of these companies are confessedly bankrupt; many more are trembling on the verge of insolvency. Indeed, it has become a quite thriving business to organize companies on purpose to fail. Such a company gets all the risks it can, contests all its losses, and, suddenly dicovering that it can't pay, offers to reinsure its policyholders in some other "shyster" company. Some of its policy-holders surrender their policies for a trifling amount of cash

never by any possibility half the amount of the premiums they have paid; others let their policies lapse, and the result is that somebody makes a handsome profit by the operation. In a few years the new company finds itself unfortunately in the same predicament, and the same operation is repeated. This is no imaginary state of affairs; we have actually known it to exist. Then look at the extravagant management of many of these companies. In one company the running expenses are 46 per cent of its receipts! Such companies, of course, would like to get back their deposit from the insurance department, and divide that, too, among its officers.

Now, there are some things which our people will not stand. We are a patient people. We stood slavery until one dreadful day, when we cast it out and spat on it, as the desolate southern States know to their cost. We stood Tweed until he became excessively impudent and shameless, and then we crushed him. We have stood that TiltonBeecher trial thus far, and we suppose we shall con

« PreviousContinue »