« PreviousContinue »
ant's lands as 80 pointed out by R., and that if in fact spect to the rule regulating the investment of trust there was a trespass, it was due to the acts and state funds, the same author says in sectious 452 and 460, ments of said R. The mistake was denied by the M. that if there are special directions in the instrument C. Co. On appeal from an order dissolving a prelimi- creating tbe trust as to the kind of securities in which pary injunction which had been granted, it was beld trust funds shall be invested, those directions must be (1) that in such a case as this, averring a mistake to followed; but that in the absence of such directions have been made in the deed of exchange, and setting and powers the trustee must be governed by the statup a verbal contract differing from the deed (which ute law or rules of the court in the State where the expressed the consideration to be the exchange of the trust is to be executed ; and if there be no such law or lands described therein), and asking it specific per rules of court, then they are to be guided by sound formance of the verbal contract, the law was well set discretion and fair dealing or good faith. The antled that the terms of the contract must be accurately thorities cited are all English, and this court bas destated in the bill, and the proof must in every essen
clared that the English rule bas never been adopted in tial particular correspond with the terms of the con this State; because there is no law or rule of court of tract thus set up. Semmes v. Worthington, 38 Md. general operation which regulates the matter. Gray 318. It is also well established that any agreement to v. Lynch, 8 Gill, 405; Evans v. Iglehart, 6 G. & J. 192. merit the interposition of a court of equity to enforce In section 459, of Perry ou Trusts, it is also stated that it must be certain in all its parts and mutual; to cor the rule he laid down was not adopted iu Maryland. rect a mistake by one of the parties as to what the The learned judge, who decided this case below, certicontract was, is not the ground of such interposition, fies a general rule of that court respecting trusts adbut a mistake in the execution of an agreement clearly ministered in it, but he adds that the court was in the understood and entered into by both parties. Griffith habit of ordering investments in other securities than v. Frederick Co. Bank, 6 G. & J. 424; Gelston v. Sig those named in the rule certified. The general rules mwnd, 27 Md. 331; Shepherd v. Shepherd, 1 Md. Chan. for equity practice recently promulgated by this court, Dec. 241; 1 Story Eq., $707. The contract set up by under constitutional authority, make no provision on the appellant is not, we think, upon the proof, in the the subject. In Gray v. Lynch, 8 Gill, 419, the queslight of the principles recognized by the authorities tion was whether the trustees should be held liable for cited, satisfactorily made out. (2) A court of equity investments in bank stock of the United States Bauk. has no inherent power to ascertain the amount of which failed; and the court held they were not audamages sustained by reason of tortious acts unat swerable for the loss; and that it would be grossly intended with profits to the wrong-doer. Kerr op Inj. equitable to charge thern with it. The court said such (Eng. ed.) 221. There must be some joint interest or investment was analogically justified by the act of interest in common of the parties in the property for a 1831, ch. 315, respecting investments by administracourt of equity to assess the damages. In a case of tors and guardians under order of the Orphans' Court, trespass where no such relations exist, we are aware of which authorized investment in “bank stock or any no ground upon which a court of equity can set up other good security." That provision still exists and any other rule of damages than that which prerails at forms the 237th section of article 93 of the Code, and law. The rule for trespass in mining coal is well set supplies the same analogical justification in this case, tled in Maryland. The right to maintain the action of the investment made in gas stock, which when of quare clausum fregit exists in this State, whether bougbt was probably deemed quite as safe and profitthe defendant committed the trespass unwittingly (as able an investment as any which could bave been the complainant claims to have done) or willfully and selected. We have had no suggestion that at that wantonly. The owner of adjoining property is held to time it was not 60 regarded. Too much caution know the boundaries between him and his neighbor. cannot be exercised by trustees in the investment of If he has made a mistake bona fide as to his titled or funds contided to their management, but wheu a disboundaries in mining coal, the lowest measure of crotion is clearly given, and its exercise is conceded to damages applicable is the value of the coal imme have been honest and with fairest intent, a court of diately upon its conversion into a chattel without equity will not charge such trustee, who is really abatement of the cost of severavce. If the trespass faultless, with the results of an honest mistako iu has been committed through negligence or design, judgment. McCoy v. Hortir tz. Opiuiou by Irving, J. punitive damages in addition may be recovered. Bar. [See unte, 188. ] ton Coal ('). v. ('ox and ('ox Ex'rs, 39 Md. 1; Franklin Coal Co. v. McMillan), 49 id. 519; Blaen Avon ('oal
CRIMINAL LAW. Co. v. Mc('ulloh, 59 id. 403. An unwitting trespasser, merely as such, could not change the amount of his CHALLENGE TO ARRAY-IRREGULARITY
BEER liability by simply changing the forum. No lower PRESUMEI) INTOXICATING.—(1) A challenge to an array measure of damages for trespasses, not negligent nor of jurors ought not to be sustained on account of mere willful, could be substituted in equity for that fixed irregularities in the drawing of the jurors, or mere iu. at law, on general principles, for such trespasses. Ifa formalities on the part of the officers charged with the lower measure could be there applied merely because drawing of the same; yet where the statute specifithe trespasser was honestly mistaken, all such tres cally prescribes the class or list of persons from whiob passers would seek the courts of equity when sued, the jurors are to be selected, the failure on the part of and thus evade the rulo established as applicable to the officers to draw the jurors from the class or list them in the aforegoing authorities. Atluntic, etc., prescribed is a sufficient ground to sustain a cballenge Coul Co. v. Maryland Coul Co. Opinion by Ritchee, J. to the array. State v. Yordi, 30 Kans. 221; Thomp.
Mer. Juris., § 143; Jones v. State, 3 Blackf. 37; Baker TRUST ANI) TRUSTEE-INVESTMENTS-G001) FAITI v. Steamboat, 14 Iowa, 214; Anon., 1 Browne (la.), DISCRETION.—Tho general rule applying to discretion 121; MoCloskoy . People, 5 Park. 308. (2) In the ary trusts is, that if trustees exerciso discretionary absence of evidence to the contrary, beer will always powers conferred on them in good faith and without be presumed to be an intoxicating liquor. Beer, aofraud or collusion, courts of equity will not undertake cording to Webster, is a fermented liquor made from to control their discretion. Perry on Trusts, SS 510 any malted grain, with hops and other bitter flavoring and 511. And the learned author cited says this is 80, matter. “When therefore the word “beer' is used in notwithstanding the court has taken jurisdiction of court by a witness, the court will take judicial notice the trust, for it to be executed under its oye. In re that it means malt and intoxicatiug liquor, or such
meaning will be a presumption of fact, and in the operetta.” When I told Judge Fullerton that Duff of meaning of the word itself there will be prima fucie the Standard thought of bringing out the operetta proof that it is malt or intoxicating liquor that is next fall, he instantly became interested.
“ We'll meant." State v. Teissedre, 30 Kans. 477, 479, 484. have to protect the copyright,” he said, at ouce. When the defense is made that the beer sold is spruce Lucky composer to have your good father a good beer, or ginger beer, or any other non-intoxicating lawyer! beer, evidence thereof is competent; but the mere fact A batch of cases of considerable importance to adthat under some formula a nou-intoxicating liquor miralty lawyers are expected to come up in the United may be made, which is sometimes called beer, is wholly States District Court in a short time. They all grow irrelevant, in the absence of proof that the liquor or out of the burning of the Inman Pier two winters ago. beer sold was made from the formula. Sup. Ct Kans. The legal questions are complicated by the fact, tbat State v. Jenkins. [(2) See 46 Am. Rep. 621.) (32 Kans. while the goods for whose value various importers are 477.)
suing, were destroyed by fire on the Inman Pier, many
of them were unladen from the Egypt, of the National SALARIES OF JUDGES.
Live, and were shipped under National Line bills of
lading; and further by the fact that owing to an acChief Associate Circuit
cident to the C'ity of Brussels, of the Inman Line, STATE. Justice. Justice. Judge.
many cases of goods intended for that steamer were shipped from Liverpool on the Egypt under Inman
bills of lading. Some plaintiffs have sued the latter Alabama..
$3,600 00 $3,600 00 $2,250 00 line, some the National. As many legal questions of Arkansas. 3,000 00 3,000 00 2,000 00
the same nature will be raised in all the suits, and California
6,000 00 6,000 00 4,000 00 Colorado
much of the evidence will bear upon the whole batch, 5,000 00 5,000 00 4,000 00 Connecticut 4,500 00 4,000 00 4,000 00
Judge Browne has ordered that they be tried together. Delawaro. 2,500 00 2,250 00 2,250 00
Whatever Judge Browne's decision may be the cases Florida.
3,300 00 3,000 00 2,500 00 will undoubtedly be carried to the Supreme ('ourt, as Georgia.
3,000 00 3,000 00 2,000 00 many questions of vital importance to merchants and Illinois 5,000 00 5,000 00 3,500 00
steamship companies are involved. Certainly every Indiana..
4,000 00 4,000 00 3,000 00 Iowa.... 4,000 00 4,000 00 2,200 00
clauso in the bills of lading limiting the liability of the Kansas 3,000 00 3,000 00 2,500 00
companies will bave to be passed upon. The plaintKentucky..
4,000 00 4,000 00 2,100 00 iffs propose to press a novel point very strongly, viz. : Louisiana.
5,000 00 5,000 00 3,000 00 That the goods were illegally on the wharf at the time Maine....
3,000 00 3,000 00 2,500 00 the fire occurred, the so-called “lay permit” of tbe Maryland.. 3,500 00 3,500 00 2,800 00
collector, granting to the steamship companies perMassachusetts.
6,500 00 6,000 00 5,000 00 Miobigan.. 4,000 00 4,000 00
mission to allow the discharged goods to remain on the
2,500 00 Minnesota.. 4,500.00 4.00000 3,000 00
wharf forty-eight hours, being contrary to law. It is Mississippi..
3,500 00 3,500 00 2,500 00 claimed that the duties of the collector are defined and Missouri.
5,500 00 5,500 00 4,500 00 limited by statute; that there is no statute authorizNebraska. 2,500 00 2,500 00 2,500 00
ing the issue of the “lay permit,' and that the simple Nevada.
6,000 00 6,000 00 5,000 00 New Hampshire.
instructions of the secretary of the treasury (Sherman) 2,900 00 2,700 00 2,700 00 New Jersey. 8,500 00 8.000 00
to the collector that he might issue such permits did
8,000 00 New York..
7,500 00 7,000 00 6,000 00 not give him the necessary legal authority to do so. North Carolina.
2,500 00 2,500 00 2,500 00 One of our judges is known among the younger Ohio.....
4.000 00 4,000 00 2,500.00 members of the profession as “the weak sister," beOregon 2,000 00 2,000 00 2,000 00
cause he is more frequently reversed than any other Peunsylvania.
8,500 00 8,000 00
5,000 00 Rhode Island. 5,500 00 5,000 00
judge of his court. The other day I was discussing
4,000 00 South Carolina 4,000 00 3,500 00 3,500 00
with a friend of mine, a motion which he was to argue Tennessee
4,000 00 2,500 00 the next morning before “the weak sister.” “There's Texas...
3,500 00 3,500 00 2,500 00 only one disadvantage under which our side will have Vermont
2,500 00 2,500 00 2,500 00 to labor," he said, “ but it's a great disadvantage.' Virginia.
3,200 00 3,000 00 1,600 00 West Virginia..
“What's that?” I asked. “We're in the rigbt!” And 2,200 00 2,200 00 1,800 00 Wisconsiu...
he was beaten. 5,000 00 5,000 00 3,000 00
Roscoe Coukling has not been in court very fre
quently of late, which in one sense is a pity. For bow. GOSSIP FROM VEW YORK.
ever greatly opinions as to his legal abilities may differ,
there is no doubt of his ability to entertain the court, FX-JUDGE FULLERTON has been the recipient of counsel and spectators. He does not confine himself
many congratulations on the subject of the suc to witticisms in his native tongue, but will even ercessful production at the Empire Theatre, London, of croach upon the sacred precincts of the ancient lauhis son's comio opera, “The Lost Locket." The ex guages. I once heard him make a Latin pun, which judge is as much surprised as those who did not know has not yet, that I am aware of, found its way into he had a musical son. I went to see him on Saturday print. During the taking of some testimony he bad to find out if he could give me somo particulars con been indulging in several Latin phrases, when in some ceruing the work. “I dont know any more about it,'' way one of the counsel was led to remark, “What's he said, “than wbat the cablegrams in the papers say. sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; ” he added, My son came to me about five years ago and told me "The Senator cannot translate that, because he does he wanted to go to Europe. As he'd been a good deal not know the Latin for sauce. “Not know the Latin of a home-bog I thought it might do him good to knock for sauce!” exclaimed Mr. ('onkling; "why, it's nienaround the world a little, so I told him if he had the tioned twice in half a line of Virgil — grari jampri. money he could go. I think he studied musio pretty dem saucia cura." thoroughly in Germany and then went to London, The counsel of Mr. Paul Bauer, the ('oney Island pool where he seems to have made some valuable connec seller, who has been pining for the ocean breezes the tions. I don't know any thing about music and don t past week during an inforced occupation as nurse in care for it, and always thought he was wasting time Raymond street jail, Brooklyn, is protesting against over it, so in his leiters he's said very little about his Judge Moore's souteuce ou Mr. Bauer, not because it
is too long, but because it is too short. By the time your readers see this Judge Platt will have decided whether or not there is any thing in this protest. Meanwhile racing men will doubtless have been bestirring themselves to get the law authorizing pool-selling and betting generally on race-tracks through the Legislature. Their strong argument is that it is good for a country to have a fine breed of horses; that racetracks encourage the breeding of fine horses, and that without the patronage of those who are drawn to the races by the excitement of betting, racing associations could not support themselves. To this however it migbt be answered that if gambling on race-tracks were suppressed, the breed of “sports” might be improved. For at present as between the race-horses and the majority of the men who gather to see them run, the horses are by far the finer animals.
The other day I came in upon a theatrical manager as he was writing the following advertisement: “Wanted-A lawyer who can draw up a contract between a manager and an actor which the latter can't break.” When I asked him in what paper he intended to insert it, he said: “It's a gay for the new burlesque I'm going to bring out. You don't suppose I'd advertise for such a contract. Why, it would be money thrown away. There's no such thing as a contract an actor can't break; at least not in this world. I never knew a contract set that was proof against a case of big head." A case of big head arises when an actor who makes a success in a small part immediately considers himself entitled to all the privileges of a star.
GUSTAV KOBBE. New York, March 18, 1855.
ready before the Court of Appeals and its steadily increasing calendar, there seems to be a view of this subject that your correspondents have overlooked.
In our zeal to relieve that very worthy body of its onerous duties we should remember that our State is the largest in commercial importance of any, and contains the monetary center of the continent, hence it is no apology for us to refer to the courts of last resorts in other States, or to lament the larger amount of our legal business, and still impair the rights and opportunities of suitors to find a remedy.
Let us look for a moment at some branches of the courts; to illustrate, take the Surrogate Court of any county of Now York State, and assume that we found the present Surrogate Court unable to hear and determine all cases that came before it. Would we restrict men from leaving estates, or prohibit dying? And still a large number of the cases in the Court of Appeals come up from that court. Another illustration might be drawn from the United States Patent Office. Many worthless inventions are patented. Can we say that a device must be rejected because the cost of the same and the interests it affects are small? By no means; to do so would cripple the industries of our whole country.
If we have sufficient business for twenty-ope judges, why not employ them, and let them work in three seotions, but in harmony with each other, and so classify them that while all do not hear the argument, the opinion in every case embodying any new question, or wherein the entire seven judges who hear the argument are not unanimous, or any case wherein they deem that justice will be promoted thereby, shall be read before all the judges, and concurred in by a majority, thus seven judges would hear and decide every case, and cases involving close questions and such as are of especial magnitude, would receive the scrutiny and thought of twenty-one.
Since the writer of ihis bas been connected with the courts of this State the amount has substantially been made to determine in many cases the merits of the coutroversy by making only those cases involving a certain amount or upwards appealable to that court; this together with the compulsory stipulation for judgment absolute, renders it upon the border line of discrimination in favor of restricting appeals to the few, a practice in my judgment most pernicious, and unworthy the great Empire State.
These are but suggestions, which we hope may call out the thoughts and opinions of other and abler minds upon both sides of this important subject.
In the meantime we await with much interest any elaboration that “will amount to satisfactory demonstration " that a class of counsel for the Court of Appeals and for work in banc will erer be of very much service to suitors (who are really the parties whose necessities are greatost) in facilitating their rights or intorests. ROCHIESTER, March 9, 1885.
* ENJOIX." Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
Are you quite correct in your approval of Mr. Gilbert M. Tucker's criticism on the word enjoin as used by lawyers, and have thoy so perverted the meaning as to reverse it completely? According to Webster's Dictionary this verbis defined in its legal use “to prohibit or restrain by a judicial order or decree; ” and there is quoted, as an authority, a sentence from Kent in these words: “This is a suit to enjoin the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs.” So in Burrill's Law Dictionary a similar definition is given: “To command a person from doing a thing; to prohibit or restrain by express command.” In the same work will be found the law French verb “enjoyndre,” from which cnjoin is derived, and reference is made to the use of that word by Britton over two centuries ago, and it has been followed up and used in that senso to the present day by judges and commentators of the law, whose puro English has never before boen questioned. You rightly adviso Mr. Tucker to go for the barbarians who uso “garnisheo” as a verb); but do enjoin him to spare the lawyers who use that forcible word enjoin, which is almost a necessity in certain judicial proceedings. If age and usage are to be regarded in establishing tho propor use of the English language, the word enjoin has a fixed and definite signification in our legal loro; and it is unnecessary to displace it by having recourso “to tho vilest newspaper slang, injuncted,” or substituting any other word in its stead. New York, Jarch 10, 1885.
('. B. S.
COURT OF 1PPEALS DECISIONS.
HE following decisions were handed down Tues
day, March 17, 1885 : Judgment rorersed and judgment on case ordered for defendant, Theodore H. Benedict and another, respondents, v. William H. Webb, appellant.-Judga ment affirmed with costs-Sylvia A. White, respondent, v. William Law, executor, appellant; George S. Allison, respondent, v. Rosa Schmitz and others, ap. pellants; Margaret Parker, administratris, respondent, v. L'Ister and Delaware R. Co.-Judgment reversed, now trial granted, costs to abide the eventMaşor, etc., of New York, appellant, V. Hannah A. Kelly, administratrix, etc., respondent. -Order at firmed with costs-William Custer, respondent, V, Green Point Ferry Co., appellant. — Orders reversed with costs-Mary Emma Wyckoff, respondent, v. Seth W. Scofield and others, appellants. Motion for restitution denied, $10 costs-Ambrose S. Murray, etc., respondent, v. Robert H. Bedell and others, appellants. -Motion for restitution granted, $10 costsMargarot ('. Wallace, eto., respondent, v. Robert H. Rordoll, appellant.
RELIEF OF TIIE (OURT OF APPEALS. Editor of the albany Law Journal:
I have read with great interest tho letter of your correspondent “Y.” in your issue of February 21, and the article under “ Current Topics” of March 1, inst., and while I appreciate the pressure of business al
The Albany Law Journal.
by age the business of their court will engross the time of twice the present number of judges, even
if it is not the case now. But is anybody going to ALBANY, MARCH 28, 1885.
move in the premises ? Where is the New York
City Bar Association? Why do not some of its CURRENT TOPICS.
members give up kicking against the pricks of
codification, and do the State a little real service by UR correspondents have recently discussed the helping to provide some measure of relief in this
subject of the relief of our Court of Appeals. exigency? We see no reason to change the opinion which we
The London Laro Times says: “Opinion in favor have long entertained and expressed, that the
of codification is certainly growing — at any rate, proper mode of relief is to have more judges and a double court. Our correspondent, E. M. M., ante, among the laity. The strength of the deputation 219, admirably presents the reasons for this prefer
from the Associated Chambers of Commere, which There is probably very little disposition in
waited upon the Lord Chancellor last week, shows any quarter to relieve the court by cutting off ap
very clearly that merchants, manufacturers and
bankers, who have lately devoted a surprising peals, unless possibly appeals from interlocutory orders, and the like. But there is a disposition in
amount of attention to questions of law reform, a certain influential quarter to advocate resort to a
have learned to expect very great things from the commission, composed wholly or in part of certain
reduction of commercial law to a written system.
It is easy to understand the longing for simplicity of our Supreme Court judges who are not fully occupied at present. If any of the Supreme Court
and precision which is at the bottom of this expec
tion. Business men are not the only people who judges are not busy enough, they can have their
feel it. Whether a commercial code, wlien obhands full by judicious transfers in their own court. The radical objection to any commission tained, would prove the unmitigated blessing it is is that it is a mere temporary expedient, whereas expected to be, is a question we need not trouble
ourselves to answer. A complete code will hardly the State ought to have at all times a sufficient number of judges to dispose of the business with
be seen by the present generation, but the common out compelling suitors to wait for a
law has now reached a stage of its development at
block," and then take up with the decision of pro tempore evitable process, and when, for good or bad, this
which codification sets in as a natural and injudges. We must look at the situation squarely, and confess that our seven judges cannot do the
process has once begun, its completion is only a business, and never again will be able to, and that
matter of time. The lord chancellor points to the they will constantly be falling further behind.
law of insurance as the next most promising subThe growth of the State and its legal business in ject for the treatment which has already been apthe last fifteen years has been enormous.
What it plied to the law of bills of exchange, bankruptcy, will be in the next fifteen no man can predict.
merchant shipping and joint-stock companies. But resources should at once be provided suflicient
Ilis lordship despairs of the complete codifi
cation of the law of contracts, but we see no reato transact the probable business, and to do it intelligently and considerately. In doing what they
son why in this piecemeul fashion the whole ground now do our judges are overworked and hurried,
should not eventually be covered. It is a pity the and occasionally their work shows the inevitable
lord chancellor should have had to point to the result of lack of time for research and reflection
legal members of Parliament as the chief obstacles only occasionally, however, for the correctness of
to law reform — and the more pity because it is their decisions on the whole is remarkable.
undoubtedly true.” They will have a complete the continual growth of the calendar is a constant
code in England before they know it, and they temptation to hurry and to overwork. There is no
cannot do better than to go on copying us. conceivable reason why there should not be a double court. Even commission makes a double Dr. Frank II. Ilamilton has an article in the curcourt for the time. We are prepared to hear some rent number of Popular Science on “ Jledical Exone object to the expense, and yet thousands of pert Testimony.” It is designed as a defense of or dollars are squandered every year in spoiling fair apology for medical experts, but we cannot say it stone in the capitol with grotesque and inappropri- is very conclusive or advances any new ideas on ate carving, without exciting much comment. Pos the subject. The doctor, speaking of the constant sibly — we do not know, it is only a suspicion disagreements of such experts, says “lawyers also our honored judges may have some personal feeling do not often agree in opinion as to the merits of against a double court. But they ought not; the the cases of their respective clients." But the cases task before them is beyond their power, or the are very different. The lawyer sees only one side; power of any other seven men, and they ought to the doctor sces both sides, or ought to. Doctor welcome any scheme of permanent relief. The Ilamilton is opposed, and wisely, we think, to the problem of adequately serving the State in its employment of permanent experts as advisers to the legal business is far above personal considerations, courts. He candidly admits that all wisdom is not By the time the present judges are all disqualified among the doctors —"in reference to questions of
Vol. 31 – No. 13,
sanity or insanity, most men of intelligence who seems to us to have been the brightest genius have reached adult life are experts." But the Doc- among the remarkable group of men who founded tor unconsciously illustrates the limitations of our institutions, a born architect of States, who had medical men as witnesses by a leaf from his own by intuition a profounder knowledge of the princiexperience in the Cole-Hiscox case. He says: “The ples of government than other men acquire by jury rendered a verdict of acquittal on the ground | length of years, study and experience. In our times, of unsound mind; but no medical expert had tes- when the question of finance is tbe most engrossing tified that Cole was insane. In the course of my one in national affairs, his works are worthy of the examination as an expert witness, the court asked most careful consideration. Although many of his me whether I thought that Cole, at the time he ideas on State policy were in conflict with those committed the act for which he was under trial, which have obtained sway in this country, yet as a knew the difference between right and wrong, and government financier he fully merits the magnifithat the act was in violation of the law.' To which
cent praise bestowed on him by another great AmeriI replied in effect that Cole, being suddenly con can statesman: “He smote the rock of our national fronted by the man who had wronged him, did not resources, and abundant streams of revenue gushed probably consider whether the act which he was forth; he touched the corpse of the public credit
, about to commit was in violation of the law or not.? and it sprang upon its feet.” It is a curious reflecIf the jury made use of this reply to pronounce tion that however States may grow and wealth inhim insane, the responsibility of their verdict does crcase, the principles of finance and of general nanot rest upon nie.
The verdict of ‘unsound mind' tional prosperity are the same in all ages. Openwas given, as it has been in many similar cases, being this volume at random, we smile at the statecause they did not think he ought to be punished ment that the States owe a debt of fifty millions, for the act, and they were quite willing to give a and that IIamilton hopes that it may be paid off, very broad and partial interpretation to any testi " without burthening the people,” in twenty years! mony which in the remotest degree seemed to fa- And yet Hamilton's theories are as respectfully
the defense. Subsequently from several studied now as when they were first advanced. We sources I learned that my testimony, inferred only shall reserve further comment until the series is from the verdict, had been subjected to criticism.”
more forward in publication, and we shall have betThis shows how incapable most physicians are ofter opportunity to speak of this great man's genius answering a simple direct question. “Did he know and services as they deserve. But there is no time the act was wrong and unlawful?” “Well, he better than the present to say that every liberal lawprobably did not think about it.” That was no an yer ought to possess and study Hamilton's works, swer at all, and ought to have been struck out.
and that this promises to be decidely the best Why couldn't he have said, “yes, but he was in edition. such a passion that he did not stop to think, or he didn't care.”
NOTES OF CASES.
Dr. Francis Wharton has been appointed legal
N Banks v. Manchester, United States Circuit adviser to the State department of the Federal
Court, Ohio, the question of copyright in judigovernment on questions of international law. It is a good idea to make such an appointment, and iff, contractor with the State of Ohio for the publi
cial decisions was decided by Sage, J. The plaintno fitter man could be found for the place.
cation of volumes 41 and 42 of the State reports,
sought to restrain the defendant, publisher of the Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons, of the city of New Americun Laro Journal, from publishing any of the York, have undertaken a very important and de- decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court to be serving enterprise in the publication of a new and reported in those volumes. The liead-notes in that complete edition of Alexander IIamilton's works. State are prepared by the judges. The court said: The only other complete edition is out of print, and “Nowhere in the statute law, relating to the publidear. This is edited by IIenry Cabot Lodge, and cation of reports, is authority given to the reporter will be completed in nine volumes, the first of or to any other person to acquire a copyright in the which is just issued, the remainder to follow at decisions or opinions of the judges. This is sigshort intervals. It will embrace “The Federalist, nificant, in view of the unanimous opinion of which heretofore has been published only in a sep- the justices of the Supreme Court of the United arate form. No better selection of an editor could States in Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 668, that no rehave been made, as is shown by Mr. Lodge's excel-porter has or can have any copyright in the written lent contributions to the series of "American States opinions delivered by that court. The legislation
The first volume is a sumptuous book, one in the State of Ohio must be considered to have of the most admirable examples of American book- been enacted with reference to that opinion, and making. The greatness of Hamilton has always therefore to have been intended to limit the provibeen appreciated by his countrymen, but of late sions above cited to the volumes of reports, and to there seems to have been a revival of interest in the exclude copyrights of the opinions of the judges. study of his character, career and writings. He | It is in accordance with sound public policy, in a