the example of America is on the whole in favor of a somewhat freer system. It has, for instance, been suggested that there should be an easier and quicker passage from either branch of the profession to the other than is now permitted here; that barristers should be allowed to be retained directly by the client, even though he must have the attorney's part of the work done by an attorney; that barristers. should be permitted to form partnerships among themselves, and to do work for lower fees than etiquette now allows, even gratis if they wish, maintaining, however, the prohibition to bargain for the payment by the result. It is argued, and with much force, that there is no reason why students preparing for the one branch of the profession should not be educated along with candidates for the other, and allowed to compete in the same examinations. In any case, it is

pretty clear that a change of some kind will come, or rather that the changes already begun by the establishment of the County Courts will be carried further. There is still time to provide that such change should take a good form, and should not consist, as some reformers wish it to do, simply in the absorption of the bar by the attorneys. This, I venture to think, would be a misfortune, not perhaps for the present members of the bar, but for the country at large.

Our English bar and bench have been in so wholesome a state for the last two centuries, despite the political crisis we have passed through, that we are perhaps too apt to fancy such a state of things. normal, and to undertake the dangers of a lapse. The circumstances of New York City, whose judges were forty years ago as reputable as those who sit at Westminster, is a serious warning that the evils whose existence we have so often heard of in Spain, Italy and France, may come to prevail in English-speaking communities also. As fresh pestilences arise when the old forms of disease scem worn out, so the perpetual vices of mankind assume a new shape in a new era, being in substance still the same. In the Middle Ages the perversions of justice were mostly due to the oppressions of a king, or of powerful nobles; now fraud takes the place of violence, and we have to fear the influence of huge masses of ignorant men swayed by unscrupulous leaders, and of prodigious accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals and companies. Fortunately, the danger in America is less than it might appear, less than it would be in a small country like England. The territory is so extensive, the different

high standard of honor and duty. The scientific character of the law, its precision and philosophical propriety, may perhaps be best secured by setting apart (as in England) a section of the profession who can the better devote themselves to it in that they are not distracted by undertaking work which is not properly legal, such as is much of the work done in an attorney's office. The conscience or honor of a member of either branch of the profession is exposed to less strain where the two branches are distinct. The counsel is under less temptation to win his cause by foul means, since he is removed from the client by the interposition of the attorney, and therefore less personally identified with the success of the client's scheme. His relation to the judge is a more independent one than if his fee were to depend on his success in the suit, as it does where a share of the proceeds or a commission on the proceeds is given to the advocate, a practice hard to check where the advocate is also the attorney: he is therefore less likely to lead a judge astray or to take advantage of a judge's corruption. He probably has not that intimate knowledge of the ciient's affairs which he must have if he had prepared the whole case, and is therefore less likely to be drawn into speculating, to take an obvious instance, in the shares of a client company, or otherwise playing a double and disloyal game. Similarly it might be shown that the attorney also is less tempted than if he dealt immediately with the judge, and were not obliged, in carrying out the schemes of a fraudulent client, to call in the aid of another practitioner, amendable to a strict professional discipline. And lastly, it is urged that where, as in England and generally in America, judges are taken exclusively from the bar (whereas on the Continent the judicial profession is distinct from that of advocacy), it becomes specially important to provide that no one shall mount the bench who has not proved his talents as an advocate, and acquired in that capacity the confidence of the public.

Such are some of the arguments which one hears used in America as grounds for preferring the double system, and they are worth considering, although it may well be thought that their force would be greatly diminished if some more effective tribunal existed than now exists there for trying and punishing professional offenses.

Which way the general balance of advantage lies is too intricate a question to be discussed at the end of a paper. But most people will admit that our present English rules are not satisfactory, and that

the example of America is on the whole in favor of a somewhat freer system. It has, for instance, been suggested that there should be an easier and quicker passage from either branch of the profession to the other than is now permitted here; that barristers should be allowed to be retained directly by the client, even though he must have the attorney's part of the work done by an attorney; that barristers should be permitted to form partnerships among themselves, and to do work for lower fees than etiquette now allows, even gratis if they wish, maintaining, however, the prohibition to bargain for the payment by the result. It is argued, and with much force, that there is no reason why students preparing for the one branch of the profession should not be educated along with candidates for the other, and allowed to compete in the same examinations. In any case, it is pretty clear that a change of some kind will come, or rather that the changes already begun by the establishment of the County Courts I will be carried further. There is still time to provide that such change should take a good form, and should not consist, as some reformers wish it to do, simply in the absorption of the bar by the attorneys. This, I venture to think, would be a misfortune, not perhaps for the present members of the bar, but for the country at large.

Our English bar and bench have been in so wholesome a state for the last two centuries, despite the political crisis we have passed through, that we are perhaps too apt to fancy such a state of things normal, and to undertake the dangers of a lapse. The circumstances of New York City, whose judges were forty years ago as reputable as those who sit at Westminster, is a serious warning that the evils whose existence we have so often heard of in Spain, Italy and France, may come to prevail in English-speaking communities also. As fresh pestilences arise when the old forms of disease scem worn out, so the perpetual vices of mankind assume a new shape in a new era, being in substance still the same. In the Middle Ages the perversions of justice were mostly due to the oppressions of a king, or of powerful nobles; now fraud takes the place of violence, and we have to fear the influence of huge masses of ignorant men swayed by unscrupulous leaders, and of prodigious accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals and companies. Fortunately, the danger in America is less than it might appear, less than it would be in a small country like England. The territory is so extensive, the different

States so independent, and in many respects so unlike one another, the general tone of the population so healthy, that the infection need not spread quickly, and may be checked (as at this moment in New York) before it has spread far. The moral, however, which the bare existence of such mischiefs teaches, is none the less grave. That moral is, in its most general form, the extreme importance of repressing corruption in all its forms; and in doing so, of not simply trusting to public opinion, however sound for the moment, but of providing some regular means of noting and pouncing upon the evil in its first beginnings. More particularly, it suggests to us the desirability of doing every thing to enhance the dignity of the judicial office, and to quicken in its holders a sense of their responsibilities; and it warns us keep within moderate limits the jurisdiction of local courts, whose judges have not that protection against dangerous influences which their social position, their incomes, and a watch ful public opinion, give to the eminent men who sit in the Superior Courts of Common Law and Equity.

The example of our country is of the more consequence, as it influences so many communities elsewhere, and especially in the colonies, -communities exposed to dangers and temptations similar to those of New York. That its example is on the whole so good, is legitimate matter for satisfaction. Much has been said lately of the decadence of Engiand; nor is there any harm in having our weaknesses pointed out, so long as suspicion is not thereby sown between ourselves and our true natural allies. But no country can be in a state of decay while it continues to uphold public purity-the purity of the bar, of the bench, and of political life. Such purity is not only a chief source of a people's happiness, but the great source of its strength; for it is the foundation of that mutual confidence between citizen and citizen, between the governors and the governed, on which, in moments of national peril, everything depends.

JAMES BRYCE.

VOL. I., NO. II,—8,

SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS.

[For the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports: 15 Minnesota ; 33 Indiana; 58 Maine; 39 California; 25 Wisconsin; 8 Rhode Island; 4 West Virginia; 7 Kentucky (Bush.); 52 Illinois; 42 Vermont.]

ABATEMENT.

1. It is no cause for demurrer, on an action of debt on a negotiable note, that a party defendant is described in the declaration as "H. D. McClintis." If there be any misnomer it should be pleaded in abatement, or the defendant on his own motion and affidavit, should have the declaration amended by inserting the proper name. Handly vs. Ludington et al., 4 West Va., 53.

2. The pendency of an action of trespass against a deputy-sheriff for his wrongful acts done under color of his office, can not be pleaded in abatement in an action against the sheriff for the same cause: Severy vs. Nye, 246; 58 Maine.

3. In an action on a promissory note, signed by the defendants as directors, wherein a voluntary association called the "Machias Mining Company," promise to pay Ellis M. Smith or order, the sum named at the time specified: Held, that all the members of the association, if any, being liable, the action should be against all; but that the action against the defendants alone is maintainable, unless they plead in abatement the non-joinder of their associates: McGreary vs. Chandler, 58 Maine, 537.

ACCEPTANCE.-See ADMINISTRATION, 5; BILLS OF EXCHANGE, &c., 2.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

A. being liable to B. in a large sun and claiming that C. was liable to him, B. accepted a small sum from A. in full satisfaction, upon the condition proposed by A. that he would forego the enforcement of his claim against C. Afterwards A. violated the condition