« PreviousContinue »
emption from taxation is a personal privilege of the writing, but I would not swear to his hand-writing very corporation specifically referred to, and ceases unless I saw him write." The cross-examination was with it, unless the express and clear intention of the not pressed further, but upon the said auswer of the law requires the exemption to pass as a continuing witness the prisoner objected to the admissibility of franchise to a successor. Oliver v. Memphis, etc., 30 the letter. Held, that the letter was admissible in Ark. 128. The franchise of becoming and being a cor evidence. (2) The prisoner offered to prove by his poration, in its nature, is incommunicable by the act mother, and other wituesses, that for about three of the parties, and incapable of passing by assignment. years prior to the alleged offense, and since he had “The franchise to be a corporation,” said Hoar, J., in been in jail, he had been subject to fits, which he profCom. y. Smith, 10 Allen, 448-455, “ clearly cannot be fered to show were epileptic, and that they had weaktransferred by any corporate body of its own will. ened his mind, and which would tend to account for Such a franchise is not, in its own nature, transmissi contradictory statements made by him about the posble." In Hall v. Sullivan R. Co., 21 L. R. 138; 2 Red. session of the money when he was arrested; but upon Am. R. Cas. 621, 1 Brunner Col. Cas. 613, Mr. Justice objection the court below rejected the evidence, unCurtis said: “The franchise to be a corporation is less the prisoner would assure the court that he would therefore not a subject of sale and transfer, unless the follow it up by proof to show that such fits rendered law, by some positive provision, has made it so, and him irresponsible for his acts. This assurance the pointed out the modes in which such salo and transfer prisoner declined to give, and the proffered evidence may be effected.” See also State v. Sherman, 22 Ohio was consequently rejected. On appeal it was held that St. 411-428. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359. the evidence was properly rejected, being well calouMemphis, etc., v. Berry. Opinion by Matthews, J. lated to mislead the jury. Maryland Ct. of Appeals, [Decided Dec. 22, 1881.]
Apr., 1884. Gross v. State. Opinion by Alvey, C. J.
(62 Md.) [(1) See 28 Eng. Rep. 633.] FRAUD-PARTY GUILTY OF, NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF.—The keeping of his mother's railroad bonds by
EVIDENCE-DYING DECLARATIONS.—(1) To be ada son under suspicious circumstances, which warrant missible in evidence, dying declarations must relate the inference of fraudulent intent on the part of both
to the identification of the prisoner or the deceased, and the father, will defeat the efforts of the wife to
or to the act of killing or to the circumstances attendregain by action such bonds from a third party with
ing the act and forming part of the res gestae. Hence whom they have been hypothecated by a brother of
where the declaration was: “I believed he (defendthe husband who occupies an office with him and the
ant) was going after his pistol when he went into the son. Matthews v. Warner. Opinion by Miller, J.
house * * * I had seen him at the house with a pistol [Decided Iec. 22, 1884.]
before,” held, that this ought to have been excluded.
State v. Draper, 65 Mo. 335; Collins v. Com., 12 Bush, EMINENT DOMAIN - COMPENSATION - COURT
271; State v. Wood, 53 Vt. 560; Whart. Crim. Ev., s CLAIMS — WAIVER OF
PROCEEDINGS. (1) 278; 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.) 210, note; id., § 159. (2) Where property to which the United States asserts no Dying declarations are in the nature secoudary evititle is taken by their officers or agents, pursuant to au dence, and are so regarded in the law. It is therefore act of Congress, as private property, for the public use, error to instruct a jury to give them the same weight the government is under au implied obligation to make they would if the declarant had testified before them. just compensation to the owner. (2) Such an implica State v. McCanon, 51 Mo. 160; Walker v. State, 37 Tex. tion being consistent with the constitutional duty of 365; Lambeth v. State, 23 Miss. 358; Whart. Crim. Ev., the government, as well as with common justice, the $ 276; Roscoe Crim. Ev. 36; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 162; disowner's claim for compensation is one arising out of approving; id. 157; and State v. Green, 13 Mo. 382. implied contract, within the meaning of the statute State v. V’ansunt. Opinion by Hough, C. J. (80 defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, al Mo.) though there have been no formal proceedings for the
MURDER EVIDENCE PREVIOUS ASSAULTS.— On condemuation of the property to public use. (3) The
the trial of a husband for the murder of his owner may waivo any objection ho might be ontitled
wife by acts of personal violence, evidence of proto make, based upon the want of such formal proceed
vious ill treatment of or assaults upon his wife by the iogg, and elocting to regard the action of the govern
accused, is admissible to show the state of feeling bement as a taking under its sovereign right of eminent
tween them. In State v. Watkins, 9 Coun. 47, the domain, may demand just compensation for the prop
public prosecutor,ou the trial of an indictment for the erty. Kobl v. United States, 91 U.S. 374; Langford
murder of defendant's wife, in the absence of direct v. U. S., 101 id. 341, distinguished. United States v.
evidence of the alleged murder, offered, with other Great Falls Manufacturing Company. Opiviou by Har
presumptive evidence, testimony to prove that for lan, J.
some months before and down to the time of the al[Decided Dec. 22, 1884.]
leged murder an adulterous intercourse subsisted between the defendant and Mrs. B. It was held that
such testimony was admissible. Chief Justice HosCRIMINAL LAW.
mer, in the opinion, says: “It is a prominent fact in
the case that the deceased was the wife of the pris! EVIDENCE-LETTERS—EPILEPTIC FITS ACCOUNTING
The presumption thence arising, that she was FOR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.—(1) On the trial uot killed by her husband, or that it was not of malof J. G. on a charge of larceny, the State offered in ice aforethought, was powerful. The relation of husevidence a letter purporting to have been written by band and wife clearly implies a strong partiality on the accused. As a foundation for its introduction, the part of the husband toward his wife, and the most the State proved that it had been received by the per ardent desire to protect her and to render her happy. son to whom it was addressed, from M. K., who was As a man will consult his own preservation and proven to be engaged to the accused; and then called pursue his own interest, so as a general truth, he will M. K. as a witness, and asked her the question, “who equally regard the protection and interest of his wrote that letter?” to which she replied, “J. G., I wife." Page 52. There are other authorities which told you that before.” The witness being then asked sustain the admission of such testimony for the puron cross-examination whether she knew the letter was pose of showing the state of feeling on the part of the in G.'s hand-writing, replied, “It looks like G.'s band defendant toward the deceased. People v. Bemis, 16
N. W. Rep. 794; State v. Moelchen, 53 Iowa, 310; S. "enjoin" in a sense quite opposed to its common C., 5 N. W. Rep. 186; People v. Williams, 3 Park. Crim. meaning, induces mo therefore to suggest that this R. 81; McCam v. People, id. 272; Stato v. Green, 35 usago is not peculiar to English-speaking peoples. The Conn. 203; Sagres v. Com. 88 Penn. St. 291. It is true Romans thus used “emancipare." In one sense this in these cases the question of motivo or intent was word meant to enslave, but in the other it meant to material, and so it is here, for under the information free. the defendant might bave been convicted of murder Cicero, in the De Senectute says, (. xi,“ in the second degree if the proof had warranted it. se nemini emancipata est, *
meaning if it has “Considerable latitude is allowed on the question of been enslaved to nobody, but in Gaius, L. 1, f. 132, the motive. Just in proportion to the depravity of the opposite use is frequent, manciput pater filium mind would a motive be trifling and insignificant aliciis.” On the third sale the son was emancipatus, which might prompt to the commission of a great or free from the patria potestas. crime.” People v. Hendrickson, I How. Pr. 165; In your discussion regarding our English word “ enBenedict v. State, 14 Wis. 4:24. The case of, Albricht v. join" I do not notice that you sufficiently observe that State, 6 id. 74, is referred to on this point by defend the proposition which invariably follows this word is ant's counsel, and requires a word of comment. That in reality an intlectional preposition; thus “enjoin was an indictment for manslaughter in the third de to” is affirmative, but “onjoin from ” is negative. gree, it being alleged that the killing was in the heat of
This is common usage in all languages which are inpassion, without a design to effect death. It was hell
flected by separate words instead of by terminations in that case to be error to admit evidence of facts
or by prefixes. I am not aware that this distinction tending to provo other assaults upon the deceased for
suggested will meet the approval of the philologers the purpose of raising the inference that the defend
who may say that in the affirmative phrase "enjoin to ant was guilty of the offense charged. But had the
to do,” to is the mere infinitive sign, and not indictment beon for murder in the second degree, as the preposition. But this is open to argument, and I in the present case, then it is intimated in the opinion
insist upon the accuracy of my distinction. that evidence of bad treatment of the boy by the de
LEX. fendant would have been proper as bearing upon the NEW YORK, Harch 23, 1885. question of malice or intent. Sup. ('t. Wis., Nov. 6, 1884. Boyle v. State. Opinion by Cole, (: J. (21 N. W. Rep. 289.) [Seo 64 Ind. 473.]
NEW BOOKS ANI) VEI EDITIONS.
A CORRECTION. Editor of the Albany Law Journal:
In Camp v. Buxton, N. Y. Sup. (t., Gen. Term, First Dept., decided Jan. 9, 1885, reported in vol. 20, p. 479, N. Y. Week. Dig., March 20, 1885, an assigned named in a general assignment for the benefit of creditors took possession of the assigned property, notwithstanding certain defects in the notarial certificates of acknowledgment. Subsequently, and after the death of the assignor, certificates in due form were made and signed by the notary, and the assignment was again recorded.
It was claimed in behalf of respondent, that "the defects in the cortificates of acknowledgment could not be cured after the death of the assignor, and that the assignment could not be recorded, and being neither acknowledged nor recorded, it was absolutely void."
The court is reported as having held “that after the form of the acknowledgment was made to correspond with the fact and conform to the statute, the assigninent became valil, and from the time of ils record conferred upon the assignee all power which such an instrumeut grants."
The language italicised is likely to mislead. In June Term, 1884, the Court of Appeals held that an assignwent takes effect from the time of its delivery, and that all else required may be done afterward, and if any of the other requirements are omitted the assignment is not thereby rendered void. Iurner v. Juffray, 96 N. Y. 248, 252, 253.
RELWOF. NEW YORK, March 25, 1885.
IIoYT'S STUDIES IN CIVIL SERVICE.
John W. Hoyt, LL. I)., ex-governor of Wyoming. John
CLARK's Max's BIRTIIRIGHT. " Man's Birthright," or the Higher Law of Property. By
Edward H. G. Clark. G. P. Putnain's Sons, New York and London. 1885. This little volume, issued with a timid note prefaced by the publishers, to the effect that it may suggest a remedy to the frightful theories of Henry George, deserves more than a passing notice. But why the publisher: think the volume remedial, when it is simply Henry lieorge pushed to the furthest extreme of endurance, we cannot see. The author agrees with George that private property in land is false economy, but he goes further and thinks tbat all property should be so taxed that every fifty years it will come back to the people, its true owners. The key of the book is, that the taxing power-that worst function of gov. ernment—should be made the medium of a lawful redistribution of property.
The style of the author in stating his theories is more forcible than elegant, although it is the literary style of a cultivated mind. We should not notice this
“ ENJOIN.” Editor of the Albany Law Journal :
I cannot but feel that every lawyer owes a duty to the only technical journal of his profession, published weekly in the State, for it furnishes the sole general medium for the exchange of current legal thought.
Your discussion of the techuical use of the word
book did it not touch the great objective aim of all perience of over two thousand years of authentic hislaws, private right, and by private right we mean tory. Mr. Clark's book is not a strong book, though property, a “ burning question.”'
it is strongly written aud shows adequately in small The theories in “ Man's Birthright” are not new, compass the theories of George and others of that ilk. nay, they are better treated by men like the Belgiau It is very portentous, but at the end it cautions pereconomist Laveleye, whose thoughtful utterauces de sons who think as the writer does from using explorive slender support from these ultra-rhapsodies of sives to enforce their theories, as if frightened at the their American allies. No doubt there is a growing awful possibilities of the power of the author's argufeeling that the world has not solved all the laws of ment. property, and that in some respect the Roman institu We should not be surprised if this book were widely tion of Quiritarian, or as Laveleye calls it, private prop read fbecause it contains elements of truth but erty has been pushed too far by tho civilizations which of truth not stated with that dignity and philhave arisen on the ruins of the Latin Ceasars. What osophy of demeanor which is necessary to make a thinking man can deny that in those countries where book a power for good, or a power for evil often10 small land-holdings are possible, there is a crying times. evil to bo speedily redressed? We agree that the Swiss Allmend, as Laveleye paints it, where there is an annual redistribution of agricultural land, is a picture of
TAUSSIG'S HISTORY OF THE TARIFF. conteutmeut hard to equal, and long before this book The History of the Present Tariff from 1860 to 1883. By F. under review was written, its effect on the future of W. Taussig, Ph. D., instructor in Political Economy in agricultural tenures was foreseen by more temperate Harvard University, etc. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New men than the writer of “Man's Birthright.” We con York and London. 1885. fess that we should like to see larger holdings of com
Very different from “Man's Birthright' is this little mon lands in this country, and a better preservation
monograph, from the same publishers. It is a clear of the public domain in the far West., for these are
succinct history of the tariff of the United States, and important checks ou the proletariat of a populous na
as it arrays the facts which speak for themselves, the tion.
author has not seen fit to resort to needless arguIt is a great mistake to take the investigations of Sir
ment. H. Maino and Laveleyo ay final. They are at best in
Professor Lieber first made the meaning of “instithe experimental stage of a new science, tho science tutions" clear to the Am icau reader. Iu his sense of comparative jurisprudence. Many of their theories
of the term, the tariff would be an organic iustitution, must be ultimately modified by further research.
and of course susceptible of separate literary treatWriters such as George and Clark welcome only that
ment. Dr. Taussig's bistory is an application of this in the comparative jurists, which coincides with their
view to a given case. It is a history of the tariff insticonceptions of a stato of nature, and they run riot in
tution of this country. We have no hesitation in prothe deductive process. Will Mr. Clark show us any
nouncing it a valuable history, and one which every fact in the history of a civilized nation that points to
legislator and politician should know before he comthe superiority of owning urban property in common? mits himself to a position from which there may be no From the earliest times and even in primitive socie
consistent retreat. It is astounding that the ig. ties tho facts point to the absolute ownership of the
norance of the science of government should be 80 homo and home lot in the burg or vil or town.
wide-spread. The amount of accurate, adequate With regard to the agricultural lands of any State we
kuowledge on any subject, relative to law or legislation confess to some doubt as to whether certain parts of
is not large, and that which there is, can be widely difthese lands should not be kept publio and annually re
fused only by an array of facts and not by dogmatizdistributed, as in the Swiss Allmend at the present ing. For this reason Dr. Taussig's history is a valuday, and in this doubt we are in the company of the
able addition to our stock of economic knowledge. most illustrious thinkers of modern Europe. But to go farther than this and to concede that that which chiefly distinguishes modern civilization from barbar
ABBOTT'S NEW YORK DIGEST, 1884. ism, is a fundamental political error, seems to us as
Mr. Austin Abbott's Annual Digest of the reports absurd as pronouncing the attraction of gravitation an
and statutes of this State has become an indispensable
aid to every lawyer. We can say of this, as we said of That our political society is vulgar and plutocratic
the last preceding annual, that it is as good as possible. we concede; that corporate and political jobbery are
It embraces 96th New York, and it digests nineteen rampaut, we know, but that the political millennium
volumes of reports. Published by George S. Diossy, to come with any such vagaries as those suggested' in
New York. melo-dramatic fashion by Mr. Clark wo deny.
Better government, better political theories, better laws, less favoritism to the rich corporation are in store for this America of our's, but they will not come by revolution, nor by the subversion of property
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. private property that which makes every one, the poorest as well the richest, monarch of his own.
FE following decisions were handed down FriWo have long advocated reform, reforms in law, re day, March 27, 1885 : strictions of the corporation nuisance, advancement Judgment atlirmed-People, respondents, v. Charles in legal studies from the technical to the philosophi II. Rugg, appellant. — Judgment affirmed with costs cal standard. Wo are in favor of our lawyers enter -In ro Accounting of Francis A. Mason and others; ing upon a new era and deplore as much as any one Lydia Miller, appellant, v. Thomas McBlain, executor, the narrow, superstitious view of property entertained etc., respondent; Catherine Lockwood, administraby most leading inen of our profession, but we still trix, respondent, v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R.-Apthink that Mr. ('lark goes too far in his notions, and peal dismissed, Town of Cherry Creek v. Phillip we propose to pin our faith to the more conservative Becker, impleaded. -Order affirmed with costs-In views of such economists as Mill and de Laveleye, and re Accounting of C. A. Waldron, assiguee, etc. The not run riot with theories which contraveno the ex court adjourned to April 13th.
The Albany Law Journal.
ALBANY, APRIL 11, 1885.
magistrate or county court judge had used similar phraseology, and the case with respect to which the remark had been made had come before the Iligh Court, there would probably have been some expressions of disapproval from the court. Much of the law of England depends on cases, the principles of which could not possibly find approval at the present day. Still more is founded on facts of mediæval life, and factors in medieval thought that have long ago disappeared. Is some bold follower of a new school of case-rejecting judges to alter the law of primogeniture, because the feudal system has now disappeared? Or are we to have the doctrines of a double possibility, and the impossibility of the existence of a use upon a use ' again doubted? Again we must say, as we have done before in commenting on a recent decision of Mr. Justice Kay's, we are not now quarrelling with his decision, which was on the construction of a will. You cannot always test a testator's expressed intention by considering how for his phraseology agrees with or differs from previous testators — 'you cannot construe one man's nonsense by another man's nonsense.' But these terribly unguarded dicta really require some observation.”
to select a cabinet of lawyers. President Cleveland has disappointed no one in this respect, unless it may be the lawyers who expected to be called on as his advisers, and were not. All his cabinet but onc, we believe, are lawyers. Mr. Bayard was once district attorney for Delaware. Mr. Endicott was for nine years a judge of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Mr. Whitney was a very active lawyer, and has been corporation counsel for the city of New York. Mr. Vilas was one of the most eminent lawyers of Wisconsin graduate of our Albany Law School, by the way. Mr. Lamar was once professor of law in the University of Mississippi. Mr. Garland has long been recognized as one of the ablest lawyers in the nation. But when it comes to the question of making money, or taking care of money, the president very wisely concedes that lawyers are not the best counsellors, and so he puts the treasury into the hands of a layman - an Albanian, by the way, of which we are duly proud. It must be admitted that the president has put plenty of brains into his cabinet, and the lawyers need not yet despair of their influence in national affairs,
There is an “irrepressible conflict” between the pretense of "
sture decisis” and the actuality of judicial legislation. The opponents of codification in one breath tell us that our law is all settled by judicial decisions, and in the next that the greatest merit of the common law is that it may so easily be made to suit circumstances - stretched or tracted, narrowed widened – elephant-trunk fashion, made to launch a ship or pick up a pin. On this matter we call attention to the following from the London Lun T'imcs : “The following dictum of Mr. Justice Kay is deserving of more notice than it has so far received. In Re Chapple ; Newton v. Chapman, 51 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 748, his lordship is reported to have said: 'I always struggle against being bound by authority, unless the principle upon which the authority proceeds commends itself to my judgment.' If this simple plan of treating previous decisions is followed by other judges, the 'glorious uncertainty of the law will rapidly become such that law in its modern sense will tend to disappear, and a system of what may be called decision in accordance with the judge's subjective view of natural equity will replace it. With all deference to the learned judge, we must protest against this theory that the authority of a decision depends on whether or no its principle approres itself to any particular judge who has to addminister the law subsequently. If any unpaid
VOL. 31 — No. 15.
A correspondent sends us the following scheme for the relief of our Court of Appeals:
" There shall be a Court of Appeals composed of a chief judge and nine associates, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State, and shall hold their offices for the term of fourteen years from and including the 1st day of January next after their election. The judges being in office at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall continue until the expiration of their respective terms, death, removal or disqualification. Upon the adoption of this amendment the Court of Appeals shall be divided into two parts; the chief judge and four associate judges constituting part I, Part II being composed of five associate judges designated by the chief judge.
The presiding judge of part II shall be the senior judge in respect of time of service among the associate judges. Yo less than four judges shall constitute a quorum in either part of the court, and a concurrence of three shall be necessary to a decision. The chief judge inay order argument of any case to be heard and decided by all the judges of the court, in which case al concurrence of seven shall be necessary to a decision. The additional judges provided for by this amendment shall be chosen as at present provided." It seems to us that it would be much better to have more judges in each part — at less six or seven. The above might barely answer at present, but in a very few years it would prove inaclequate, and it is best to provide ample means now for at least a generation.
Mr. Thomas has introduced a bill in our Senate for the republication of the Session Laws from 1777 to 1801 inclusive. We hope this will prevail. These laws have become exceedingly scarce.
who is the best possible authority, says there are lature by a general law governing its procedure, so not five complete sets in existence, and that he has as to afford an opportunity for scrutiny and examvainly tried for twenty years to complete his own ination before the bill comes before the Legislature, set. A few fires might destroy all there are. The and to present objections thereto. The Legislature design of the bill is to supply sets to all the legis- should by such a general law governing its prolative and judicial libraries of the State, and to cedure provide a mode of hearing of all private and furnish copies to any who may wish to purchase. local bills by special committees; and all local and Doubtless the sales would go far toward paying the special bills affecting city, town, township or expense. At all events the State ought to take county interests, and all bills creating corporations immediate measures to perpetuate the records of its or amending corporate powers, or involving the exearly laws.
ercise of the power of taxation, or of eminent do
main, should be treated as bills requiring formal The Association of the Bar of the City of New investigation. It is a well known fact that all the York have reported a “Plan for improving the expenses of the legislative sessions of parliament Methods of Legislation of this State,” by a commit are defrayed by the payment of the fees which protee consisting of Messsrs. Simon Sterne, James M. moters of private bills are required to pay into Varnum, Theron G. Strong and George H. Yeaman. chancery upon filing and hearing of their measures. We infer that the germs of this plan may be found
might be well for the Legislature in a general in Mr. Sterne's excellent essay read before the
law to make provision that the promoters of private American Bar Association last summer, and pub- and local bills should pay a specific sum of money lished in this journal. The committee say:
to the comptroller of the State of New York, for committee respectfully recommend a constitutional the necessary expenses incident to the examination amendment creating a Commission of Revision and hearing of such bills." We believe that someto be appointed by the Governor for the period of thing of this sort must be done. In connection with his own term of office, which shall consider all pul) | this we call attention to Mr. Hopkins' communicalic legislation except supply bills. This consider
tion in another column. ation shall relate to the constitutionality of a bill, its effect upon existing statutes, its relation to and As a letter in our issue of April 4th last, signed its effect upon the common law, whether the object “Relwof,” treats of a question now in actual litiof the bill can be secured under existing statutes, gation in which Mr. Robert L. Fowler appears,
it whether the language of the bill is apt for the pur- may be possibly attributed to his interest in the pose intended, whether its provisions are consistent question, which would be unjust to Mr. Fowler, with each other and with existing law, and to point who is not afraid to say what he has to say openly, out whatever incongruities there may be either in and in his own fashion. Hereafter we must request language or in the provisions themselves. The our correspondents to use somewhat less misleading useful operation of the scheme here suggested as to noms de plume than family names spelled backpublic legislation would involve a material modlifi ward. cation of the present system of standing legislative committees, a system rendering the annual contest
NOTES OF CASES for the speakership both arduous and demoralizing.
N Union National Bank v. Dersham, Pennsylvania after being scrutinized by the Commission of Re Supreme Court, October, 1884, 15 Week. N. vision, but it would not be a committee selected Cas. 540, A., a man of ordinary firmness, made å in advance by the friends or opponents of the deposit in a bank, for which the cashier gave him a measure, nor its composition known in advance. certificate of deposit, but neglected to append
For all special and local law's your com thereto the word “cashier " after his name. Submittee respectfully recommend a constitutional sequently, after the cashier had resigned his posiamendment, which shall provide that no local or tion in the bank, he added the word “ cashier” to special bill which involves the exercise of the right correct his former error. The certificate of deposit of eminent domain or the power of taxation shall was then cashed by the bank. Afterward the bank be passed by the Legislature unless such bill, and it called A.'s attention to the fact that the word petition setting forth the necessity therefor, shall " cashier" had been added to the certificate at a have been filed in the office of the secretary of State different time, and with different ink, accused him at some fixed period in advance of the legislative of making the ulteration, said they would go to law session, and its general purpose and effect adver and recover the amount paid him, and that they tised in such manner and for such time as the could prosecute him for forgery. A., then, to Legislature shall by a general law to govern its avoid litigation and to settle the dispute, gave the legislative procedure direct; and that the Legislature bank a note for seventy-five dollars, and paid it. shall not consider il special or local bill not of this Held, that he could not recover it. The court said: character unless the same shall have been filecl in “ There is no evidence that the plaintiff is timid or the office of the secretary of State and notice of feeble, or not possessed of ordinary firmness by reasuch filing given as shall be directed by the Legis son of age or other cause. IIe did not believe they