checks would be, and to avoid the use of bank checks, such notes and acceptances are liable to the two cent stamp tax as 'vouchers,' for the payment of money by the bank. But unless the notes referred to are used as substitutes for checks, etc., as evasions of the stamp❘ tax on checks, this office will not insist upon their being stamped.

"The law in its widest sense, and taken literally, includes in the tax all bank 'vouchers' for the payment of money. But in view of the well-known object of the enactment as above referred to, it has been the endeavor of this office to confine its operation, as far as a practicable line can be drawn, to such vouchers as are used as a substitute for checks, etc., as commonly employed, according to the custom of banks.

"The above observations will also apply to drafts upon private parties not bankers, etc., accepted payable at a bank. A receipt which performs the work of a bank check, as, for instance, where a person who has money on deposit with a bank, draws out a portion of it, but instead of drawing it out upon a check, gives the bank his receipt therefor, which is taken by the bank and held as a voucher, is considered liable to the tax. If a dividend due a stockholder has been credited to his deposit account upon the books of a bank, it has become a deposit, and a receipt given for it, or for any portion of it, would, in my opinion, be liable to stamp tax. But while a receipt given for a dividend which has not lost its identity by taking the form of a deposit, might perhaps under a strict construction of the statute be liable to the stamp tax, it would not in my opinion fall within its intent and meaning, and this office will not insist upon its being stamped. Section 6 of the act of March 3, 1875, exempts from the tax the receipts in the receipt book of a savings bank or institution for savings, having no capital stock and doing no other business than receiving deposits, to be loaned or invested for the sole benefit of the parties making such deposits, without profit or compensation to the association or company, when money is paid to a depositor on his pass-book.

"The banks referred to in the above exemption are those which properly make returns on Form 106 a,' and collectors should require stamps on the receipts of depositors in receipt books kept by any other banks. Some banks whose returns should properly be made on 'Form 106 b,' are in fact erroneously making them on 'Form 106 a.' This error should be corrected. Receipts in receipt books of such banks should of course be stamped.

"A certificate of deposit, which is such on its face, and represents money actually deposited in a bank by the person to whom it is issued, is not considered liable to stamp tax, as commonly used. The money represented by such certificates should be returned and taxed as deposits. Checks drawn on their own bank by bank officers or clerks, for their salaries, should be stamped. 'Cashiers' checks,' in general, issued or delivered to outside parties for payments, etc., require stamps. Checks drawn by a bank upon itself, for the purpose of paying its own dividends, and the dividends, coupons, or interest of other corporations, and issued, should be stamped. Checks drawn by bank officers merely for the purpose of charging an account with items, as an inside transaction of a bank, but not issued, are held to be exempt. Checks drawn by State, county, or city officers, in their official capacity, upon public funds deposited in a bank, are exempt if said funds are kept separate from private accounts.

"Inland bills of exchange upon a bank, etc., and bills drawn in a foreign country upon a bank, banker, or trust company in the United States, should be stamped before being accepted, negotiated, or paid. Drafts or bills drawn in the United States upon a foreign country need not be stamped, not being 'vouchers' in the meaning of the law while in this country. Interest coupons are exempt. Duplicates of bills, orders, etc., are liable the same as originals. Receipts, not relating to bank business; for instance, for rent; are exempt.

"The act of June 23, 1874, allows parties having an interest in instruments, documents, and papers, theretofore made, signed, or issued, liable to stamp duty, and remaining unstamped, to stamp such papers before a judge or clerk of a court of record, in the manner prescribed by the act, at any time prior to January 1, 1876, without a penalty. But in some cases parties may still prefer to have such instruments stamped by a collector. The collector is authorized to stamp them when presented, according to the provisions of section 3422 Revised Statutes, as amended by act of February 18, 1875, but cannot remit the penalty in any case after twelve months from the issue of the instrument."

COMMISSION OF APPEALS ABSTRACT.

APPEAL.

Action for specific performance of contract for sale of land: powers of general term.-This action was brought for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land by defendant to plaintiff. The court, at special term, dismissed the complaint, and found, among other facts, that plaintiff had paid a certain sum in part performance of the agreement, which had never been paid back or tendered by defendant. The general term reversed the judgment, and ordered judgment for plaintiff for damages to the amount paid on the contract as found by the court below, The plaintiff appealed from so much of the judgment as gave damages. Held, that as there was no appeal from that part of the judgment reversing the judgment at special term, it must be assumed that the reversal was proper, but if a judgment for damages was proper, it was not necessarily limited to the amount paid, and a new trial should have been granted.

The general term has no power upon the reversal of a judgment to render a judgment in favor of the appellant, unless the parties have agreed upon the facts, or they are found by the court or jury on trial; it cannot determine the question of damages, this must be determined by the court or tribunal for the trial of issues of fact. Cuff v. Dorland. Opinions by Lott, Ch. C., and Reynolds, C.

AWARD.

When not binding: irregularity.-This is an action upon an award. The submission was in writing under seal. By its terms two arbitrators were appointed, with authority, in case of disagreement, to appoint a third, the decision of any two of them to be final, The original arbitrators failed to agree, and they appointed a third man. He did not take the statutory oath. The three met and examined the minutes of the testimony already taken, and on the same day made their award, which two of them signed. Defendant did not receive notice of the appointment of the third arbitrator or the time and place of meeting at which the award was signed. Defendant

refused to comply with the terms of the award. Held, that, defendant not having waived a rehearing, the award was not binding and could not be enforced. Hall v. Lawrence, 4 T. R. 589, limited and distinguished.

Also held, that the provision of the Revised Statutes (2 R. S. 542, § 4) requiring arbitrators to take an oath as prescribed applies to all submissions in writing, although they do not contain a clause for entering judgment on the award, but a failure to take the oath does not make the award a nullity, the irregularity may be waived. If it is not waived the Supreme Court can set the award aside upon proper application, and in an action upon the award an answer setting up the irregularity is in the nature of an application to this equitable power of the court and is sufficient to present the question. Day v. Hammond. Opinion by Dwight, C.

BANK.

Payment of overdrawn account: acts of teller when binding. This action was brought to recover back a sum of money plaintiff claimed had been credited to defendant by mistake on its books, and drawn out by him upon his check. It appeared that plaintiff, to defendant's knowledge, employed a paying and a receiving teller in its bank, it being the general duty of the latter to receive moneys paid in or deposited. Other officers and clerks acted in his place when he was absent. Defendant received a letter from the paying teller, referring to the matter, requesting him to call and see him. He went to the bank and at the request of the paying teller paid over the counter to him the amount required to rectify the mistake. No entry of this was made upon the books. It did not appear that when defendant made the payment to the receiving teller the paying teller was in the bank. Held, that the payment by defendant was good, and plaintiff was bound thereby. E. R. Nat. Bank v. Gove. Opinion by Earl, C.

CITY ORDINANCE.

License to cartmen.- This action was brought to recover a penalty for the violation of an ordinance of the common council of the city of Brooklyn. The charter of the city (Tit. 2, §§ 1, 13, subd. 4, 18, chap. 384, Laws of 1854) empowered the common council to pass ordinances, licensing and regulating cartmen, etc., and to authorize the mayor to grant such licenses. Ordinances were passed prohibiting the driving of a cart within the city, for hire, unless licensed by the mayor, and authorizing the mayor to grant licenses. Held, that these ordinances were valid, the delegation of such powers to the mayor being expressly authorized, and the requiring of a license a proper regulation for the benefit of the city and its citizens. Such ordinances were not applicable only to those who pursued the separate business of cartmen, but any one having carts for his own business, who lets them out for hire, for the carriage of other's goods without having obtained a license, was liable for the penalties imposed by said ordinance for such violation thereof. City of Brooklyn v. Breslin et al. Opinion Lott, Ch. C.

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.

Order on treasury of a corporation : revocation: rights of holder. This was a consolidated action, embracing three suits, brought to recover installments alleged to be due upon an order accepted by defendant. Defendant's president wrote a letter, which stated in substance, that, if B., one of its employees, would make an order for any portion of his salary, and the

person in whose favor it was drawn should file it with the treasurer the sum named would be paid monthly, so long as B. remained in the employ of the company, and the order "remained unrevoked." B. thereupon drew an order directing the treasurer to pay N. $300 in monthly payments of $50, and charge the same to his salary account. The order and letter were delivered to N. for a valuable consideration, and he presented them to the treasurer and by his direction filed them with the cashier. B. afterward wrote to the treasurer, stating that "if not accepted" he countermanded the order. He remained in defendant's employ six months after at a salary of $118 per month. Defendant refused to pay under the order. Held (Dwight, C., dissenting), that plaintiff could not recover; that treating the order as a bill of exchange the letter was not equivalent to an actual acceptance, as it was conditional (1 R. S. 768, § 8), that it was not an equitable assignment, as the order was not a requirement to pay out of a designated fund or from a particular source, and that B.'s subsequent letter was a revocation, and rendered the conditional acceptance inoperative. Shaver v. West. U. Tel. Co. Opinions by Lott, Ch. C., and Dwight, C.

NEGLIGENCE.

Injuries caused by fall of building.—This action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of the falling of a building in Brooklyn, of which defendants were the owners. Plaintiff was upon the sidewalk, about twenty-five feet from the rear wall of the building, when it fell out and he was knocked down and injured by the falling bricks and mortar. Held, that defendants were obliged to take reasonable care that their building should be kept in proper condition, so that it should not fall into the street and injure persons there lawfully, and, in the absence of explanatory circumstances, negligence will be presumed from the happening of such an accident, and the burden was upon defendants to show the use of ordinary care. Mullen, by guardian, v. St. John et al. Opinion by Dwight, C.

REAL ESTATE.

Contract of sale: assignment: rights of third parties. -This was an action of ejectment. It appeared that J. contracted to sell certain premises to S., who subcontracted a portion thereof to defendant, who entered into possession. S. failed to perform his contract, and it was surrendered and a new contract of sale executed between him and J. S. received thereafter a payment from defendant; he assigned his contract to C., who was aware of defendant's interest; the latter then held a note given to him by S. for more than the amount of the unpaid purchase-money. S. was insolvent. J. conveyed to C., "saving all rights, if any," under his contract with S. Plaintiff brought this action as devisee of C. Held, that C. took his assignment subject to the equities between defendant and S.; that S. could not affect C.'s rights without his consent, by surrendering the old and taking a new contract, but that the subsequent payment was an adoption and ratification by S. of the change; that defendant had the right to offset the note against the unpaid purchase-money, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Cavalli v. Allen. Opinions by Dwight and Reynolds, CC.

STOCKHOLDER.

Liability of.-This was an action in the nature of a creditor's bill, brought by plaintiff as a judgment

creditor of the N. J. S. Nav. Co., after a return of an execution nulla bona, to reach certain assets of the said company, alleged to be in the hands of the defendant Drew. It appeared that by order of the board of directors three steamboats of the company were sold and the proceeds of the sales were divided among the stockholders, and defendant Drew received for his share an amount larger than plaintiff's judgment. Held, that plaintiff could maintain the action; that it was immaterial whether what Drew received was under a fair agreement with his associates, or by a wrongful act, as the assets of the corporation were a trust fund for the payment of its debts, and the stockholders could not by agreement among themselves destroy the creditor's lien thereon.

Also held, that it was not necessary for plaintiff to bring his suit on behalf of other creditors who might choose to come in or to make all the other stockholders parties to the action, he had nothing to do with the equities as between them, he has nothing to do unless he chooses to intervene to settle them. Bartlett v. Drew, impleaded, etc. Opinion by Reynolds, C.

BOOK NOTICE.

United States Digest. A Digest of Decisions of the various Courts within the United States. By Benjamin Vaughan Abbott. First Series. Vols. III, IV and V. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1874-5.

THE plan of Mr. Abbott, in bringing out his United

States Digest, is to give a complete exhibit of the adjudications of the courts of the United States. To facilitate the matter of publication, and to secure convenience in preparation, the entire work was divided into two series. The first series comprises the period from the beginning of our judicial history to the year 1870, and contains all that appeared in the volumes of the wellknown "United States Digest," first series. In the second series, Mr. Abbott continues the work in annual volumes, and four volumes of this second or new series have been issued. The first series, of which volumes III, IV and V now lie before us, is now nearly half completed, the intention being to so arrange the subject-matter as to include the whole of the United States adjudication prior to 1870 in about twelve vol

umes.

But little more than a year has elapsed since the first volume of this series was published; and the rapidity with which the work is prepared and issued is something marvellous. But an examination of the volumes shows that no pains have been spared to make the digest accurate and in every way trustworthy. The object has been well carried out to reproduce in more convenient form than ever before all that is valuable of the statement of the American cases. Some reports have been included in this series that were omitted in the old, and the whole body of American reports is represented. Volume III comprises the heads from "Bonds to Costs," inclusive; Volume IV comprises the law from "Counties to Discovery," and Volume V from "Disorderly Houses to Evidence." The classification of the various topics in the main corresponds with that of the old digest; in some of the subdivisions, however, alterations have been made, the logical connection of the decisions being observed more closely than in the old series. Where the decisions are governed by positive law in the several States, the arrangement is by States, in order to subserve the purposes of comparative jurisprudence. The fact that there are no omissions of any adjudications of conse

quence, whether early or late, renders the digest a complete history of American law as found in the reports. But care should be taken to distinguish between what is out of date and obsolete, and what is now operative. Some decisions, which have been unequivocally reversed in a higher court, the editor has omitted; but other decisions which are included may have been modified by later decisions or by legislation. The careful student will recognize the fact which is common to all digests, that these volumes cannot tell him every thing. They simply present a comple survey of American adjudication from its earliest period down to 1870, without comments. The inferences and bearings are to be deduced by the practitioner who has recourse to these volumes; and we are sure that no lawyer can afford to be without them.

CORRESPONDENCE.

CITATIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA OPINIONS. CINCINNATI, O., May 4, 1875. Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

DEAR SIR- In the notice of the 75 Penn. St., in your Journal of the 17th ult., p. 258, you observed: "We have to notice again the remarkable fact that the Pennsylvania judges seldom cite cases decided in other States. What the theory of this is we do not know, etc." I may be mistaken, but I have a very distinct impression of having learned through some source, that the reason for the absence of citations of cases decided elsewhere than in that State, is nothing more nor less than a statute prohibiting such citations. Such a law. if one there be, has always struck me as absurd and monstrous, and in the instances in which I have heard it referred to it was by way of ridicule invariably. I am confident that I have heard of such a law as having been enacted in one or two of our States. Will not some practitioner in such a State, if one there be, settle CURIOUS. the question?

AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

THE

HE 13th rule of Practice in Equity is amended so that it will read as follows: "The service of all subpoenas shall be by a delivery of a copy thereof by the officer serving the same to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy thereof at the dwelling-house or usual place of abode of each defendant, with some adult person who is a member or resident in the family."

The first paragraph of rule 20 of this court is amended so that it will read as follows: "In all cases brought here on appeal, or writ of error, or otherwise, the court will receive printed arguments, without regard to the number of the case on the docket, if the counsel on both sides shall choose to submit the same within the first ninety days of the term; but twenty copies of the arguments, signed by attorneys or counselors of this court, must first be filed-ten of these copies for the court, two for the reporter, three to be retained by the clerk, and the residue for counsel."

Rule 26 is amended as follows: Add at the end of paragraph 4: "All motions to advance cases must be printed, and must contain a brief statement of the matter involved, with the reasons for the application."

IT

NOTES.

is stated that the committee appointed by the New York Bar Association to codify and revise the ordinances of that city has made its report, in which they commend the plan adopted by the city of Boston, for the codification of its municipal ordinances, above all others. The committee state that the Boston plan is to arrange the State and municipal legislation under their appropriate topics in the same volume, and publish first the State laws, and second, immediately under it, in a different type, which at once strikes the eye, the city ordinance upon the same subject. This plan was adopted in Boston in 1869, and one neat volume contains the whole work; and the legislation, both State and municipal, of each subsequent year, has been published annually in pamphlets according to the same general plan, the paging being continued consecutively from year to year, until the new legislation shall amount to a second volume, when the parts can be bound, and the completeness and perspicuity of the whole work preserved. Circuit Judge McKennan, in The Union Paper Collar Co. v. White, United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (32 Leg. Intel. 143), has held that a combination of muslin and paper is patentable for use as collars, although before used as maps.- The Duke of Argyle is said to be writing a work on "Law and Theology."

Edwards Pierrepont, the newly-appointed attorneygeneral, was born in North Haven, Conn., in 1817. He was fitted for college by Noah Porter, now president of Yale, and was graduated at that college in 1837, in the same class with William M. Evarts and Chief Justice Waite. He was prepared for the bar at the Yale Law School, then in charge of Judge Daggett, and was admitted to practice in 1840. Soon after he removed to Columbus, Ohio. There he remained five years, when he removed to New York, where he has lived ever since. He was elected judge of the Superior Court to succeed the late Chief Justice Oakley, and resigned in 1858, after holding the position for three years.- - Col. Nicholas Smith, a Kentucky lawyer, married Ida Greeley, the elder daughter of Horace Greeley, on Saturday last.

Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Burton, two venerable English lawyers recently died. The former took out his certificate in 1805, and the latter in 1808. The Aberdeen Court of Justiciary was held on Monday, when a singular circumstance occurred. No counsel were present, and, by direction of Lord Young, Sheriff Thompson and Sheriff Wilson took their seats at the Bar, and discharged the duties of advocates. It is fifty or sixty

years since a justiciary court in Aberdeen was unattended by counsel, and on that occasion the precedent was for the first time set of a prisoner being defended by a sheriff within the county in which he had jurisdiction as a judge. - Judicial dignity is evidently well upheld in Wales. At the Carmarthan County Court recently, the judge (Mr. Terrell) sent the high baliff of the court to the reporters who were present, with an intimation that he should expect from them the same marks of respect on his taking his seat as he received from the other persons present in court.

The State Civil Courts in New York city for May promise to be unusually busy in disposing of the accumulations of business. The Supreme Court, general term, has a calendar of over 400 cases to dispose of. Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels are assigned to it. The Supreme Court Circuit calendars have been somewhat reduced, but still have a full year's work ahead. Three circuits are to be held this month, presided over by Judges Donohue, Van Brunt, and Barrett. There will be no special term until next Monday, when possibly Judge Lawrence, who holds chambers the first week, will be free, and will sit in that branch. - - The celebrated case of the Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company v. Willis, to which we referred last week, has been decided in favor of the plaintiff by the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Emmons delivering the opinion. The case was argued by B. F. Lee, of New York, for plaintiff, and John F. Follett, of Cincinnati, and C. C. Burt, of Jackson, Mich., for defendant. It is stated that two or three thousand suits had been brought against infringers of this patent; but this case settles the matter so far as the Circuit court is concerned.

Lord Selborne, in replying to the toast of "The Bench" at a dinner at Fishmongers' Hall, said: "It was well-known that, when in high office, he had the heavy responsibility cast upon him of endeavoring to carry into effect measures which seemed to him to be ripe for legislation, not for an alteration in main principles, but for the improvement, in accordance with those principles, of the judicature of the country, and from those measures he still hoped the nation would receive the greatest and the most lasting benefits. To him it seemed a thing unendurable that measures of that importance, and introduced by successive governments, to the best of their judgment, in accordance with what the country demanded, should be prostrated, not by mature wisdom, not by the general voice of the country, not by any public opinion, but by cliques and the intrigues of a party.". -The Paris correspondent of the London Daily News records a judgment of the Supreme Court of France, the Court of Cassation, in a revenue case, which involved the sum of only one penny, ten centimes. The court has decided that, by virtue of M. Dufaure's law of August 21, 1871, an agent of an insurance company sending in his accounts to his principals must put a penny stamp upon the paper.

At a meeting of the International Code Committee in New York, the following gentlemen were appointed delegates to the September conference of the association, for the reform and codification of the law of nations, to be held at The Hague, Holland: President Woolsey, David Dudley Field, James B. Miles, Judge Peabody, Rev. Dr. Field, Amasa Walker, Nathan Ap

pleton, Alexander H. Rice, A. P. Sprague, Judge Davies, Elihu Burritt, J.V. L. Pruyn, William S. Hubbard, President Magoun and Dr. J. P. Thompson. The Law Magazine and Review for April contains articles on "Undue Preference," "The Patents Invention Bill," “The Paradox in the Law of Trade Unions," "Archaic Law and our Newest Colony (Fiji)," "Rights of Authors," " ," "Recent Legislation on the Laws of Contracts Compared with the American Law," etc. It also contains a review of Sir Henry Thring's "Simplification of the Law," reprinted from the Quarterly Review.- - A correspondent of the New York World says, that the political feeling of the members of the United States Supreme Court was manifested in the delivery of the opinions in the case relating to the validity of the action of General Butler's Provost Court in New Orleans during the war. Justice Strong read the prevailing opinion sustaining the validity of the action of that court. Judge Field dissented, alluding to Butler in terms not complimentary. Judges Strong and Field are said to have had some sharp words after the delivery of the opinions; but this may be very safely doubted, considering its source.

In the Tilton-Beecher trial, Stephen Pearl Andrews testified that in Texas he translated and published Spanish law works, and also published a treatise of his own on entails. — Judge Morreiles of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has charged the grand jury that the civil rights act was not intended to affect social rights through civil and legal rights; and that a conductor of a railroad train can assign a special car to certain persons, provided the other passengers are furnished with all necessary facilities for traveling. But if an innkeeper, manager of a theater, or transportation agent refused proper facilities to a person, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, the grand jury would have authority to find a true bill against him.Judge Brooks, of the United States District Court at Wilmington, N. C., in charging the grand jury, said that the civil rights act, in its criminal aspect, was unconstitutional and void.- The Evening Post says that the New York Common Council on Arts and Sciences has prepared and reported an ordinance which declares guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly "any person who shall permit any bear, or other noxious or dangerous animal, to run at large, or who shall lead any such animal, with a chain or rope or other appliance, whether such animal be muzzled or unmuzzled, in any street, avenue, lane, highway, or public place within the corporate limits of this city."

The docket of the Supreme Court of the United States for the October term, 1874, which terminated on Monday, contained 830 cases. 234 were disposed of in regular order, and a few cases were advanced, making the total number of cases disposed of 310. Opinions were given in 210 cases. The government was a party to about 75 cases, but not half of the number was disposed of, many of them being reassigned for an early day of the next term of the court. Although the number of government cases was not as great as usual, the attorney-general believed them so numerous that to push them with greater rapidity would be interfering too much with private cases. A drama founded on the Tichborne case has appeared in Paris at the Ambigu Theater. The justices of the United States

Supreme Court are departing for their different circuits. Justice Miller will preside over the United States Court of the eighth circuit, which embraces Iowa, Missouri, Kansas and Arkansas. Justice Clifford will hold court with Judge Shipley in the first circuit, which comprises the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The Central Law Journal says: "There seems to be a growing disposition on the part of both the great political parties, to select from the bench independent and honest judges for important political offices. We have already noted this tendency in the promotion (if it were a promotion) of Judges Bedle, Peck, Christiancy and McMillan, two of them to the office of governor of their respective States, and two to the senate of the United States. A similar piece of fortune (or misfortune) has just overtaken Judge Phelps of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, who has been elected to congress on the democratic ticket. Judge Phelps is said to be a man of character and ability, and the only objection urged against him, aside from party objections, was, that it was unwise to select candidates for political offices from the bench. While we should be sorry to have the judicial bench come to be regarded as a stepping-stone to politics, we should be glad if both the great political parties would, in the next contest for the presidency, have the wisdom to nominate jurists of ability and integrity, who have shown themselves to be familiar with the principles which must be looked to in settling the different questions growing out of the war, the reconstruction acts, and the recent constitutional amendments."

Mr. Andrew Rutherford Clark, advocate, has been elected a Curator of Patronage in the University of Edinburgh, in succession to Lord Neaves, whose tenure of office has expired. Mr. Clark is an LL.D. of the University of Edinburgh, and was called to the Scotch bar in 1849. He was solicitor-general for Scotland from 1869 to February, 1874, when he succeeded the present lord advocate in the post of dean of faculty.

-The London Law Times remarks that there appears to be a growing practice of confession amongst jurymen, which, if possible, should be sternly repressed. In all great cases where the jury disagree, or the verdict is in any way remarkable, we are speedily informed of the why and the wherefore of the proceeding. In the great Orton trial there were many persons who professed, with some show of authority, to be in possession of the views of each individual juryman, but we have nothing to say against the wisdom and discretion of that immortal jury. In Charlton v. Hay, however, where the jury disagreed, statements were freely made as to the nature of the division, the number for and against a verdict for the plaintiff being confidently stated and not contradicted. And lastly, we are furnished with a singular history of the manner in which the Scotch jury in Johnston v. The Athenæum arrived at the damages awarded. It is very remarkable that any jury should have resorted to the method disclosed of estimating damages for libel; but it is still more remarkable that any one of the jurymen should have made the world acquainted with it. The most awe-inspiring judicial faculty is that of silence. When judges defend themselves or condemn their enemies, and when juries disclose the secrets of the jury box, blunders are committed the serious nature of which does not appear to be fully appreciated.