« ПретходнаНастави »
business of the principal avd as a part of the transac- sett, 21 id. 162; State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389; S. C., 10 tion which is the subject of inquiry. Hence where the Am. Rep. 42; 1 Bish. Marr. & Div., & 87; State v. Kenbaggage-master of a railroad company, wbile away nedy, 76 N.C. 251; S.C., 22 Am. Rep. 683; Ellis v. State, from the baggage-room of the company and engaged 42 Ala. 525; Burns v. State, 48 id. 195; S. C., 17 Am.
in the transaction of his private business on his own Rep. 34; U. S. v. Stanley, 109 U. S. 3. State v. Jackson. opostist premises, gave directious to a stranger with reference Opinion by Heury, J. [See 32 Eng. Rep. 7.]
to the delivery of baggage, held, that they were not
on the company. Adams v. Railway Co., 74 Mo. 554. City of Chillicothe v. Raynard. Opinion by Norton, J.
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
REFORMED. - As against a married woman a court of
CONTRACT-PERSONAL LIABILITY OF AGENT.--The reform a deed, or to do any thing else which will di
defendants gave the plaintiff a note reading: “$1,000. vest title to land out of her. Hence where there
Carmel, April 22, 1876. For value received, we, the were two deeds of trust executed by husband and
subscribers for the Carmel Cheese Manufacturing Comwife, and both intended to cover the same land, but
pauy, promise to pay William Simpson, or order, one
thousand dollars in six months from date, with interby mistake the earlier deed described a different tract, and because the holder of the later deed had notice of
est. F. A. Simpson, Rufus Work, A. S. Garland." the mistake, the court decreed that the first deed
Held, that an action upon the note could not be mainshould be reformed and enforced as a first lien against
tained against the signers, as it did not purport to be the true land. Held, that this decree was correct so
their promise, but the promise of their principal, and far as it related to the husband's interest, but errone
if given without proper authority the agents may be Ous so far as it related to the wife's, and as to her in
liable in another form of action. Nor could an action terest the second deed must remain the first lien.
of money had and received be maintained against
them where they received the money as agents, and Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 Mo. 264; 7 Cent. L. J. 182; At. kison F. Henry, 80 Mo. 151. Meier v. Blume. Opin- disposed of it for the benefit of their priucipal before ion by Sherwood, J.
the commencement of the suit, and without notice to
withhold it. The note does not contain the promise MARRIAGE-HUSBAND AND WIFE'S JOINT ESTATE
of the defendauts. There are in it no apt words to CONVEYANCE OF-TITLE BOND-EQUITY.-Where a hus- bind them, but the promise is expressly made for the band and wife are seised in entirety the husband may corporatiou. The testimony introduced has no tendwithout joining his wife couvey his legal or equitable eucy to fasten that promise upon them, nor would estate, subject to her right of survivorship. But that or any other having that tendency be competent where the husband alone executed a title bond for for the purpose. So far as the action is founded upon such land, held, that the wife's estate could not be di. that contract, it must stand or fall with it. Any vested by reason thereof, although she afterward re- proof offered, whether in writing or otherwise, must ceived from her husband part of the purchase-money,
correspond to the allegations in the writ. If they and thereupon expressed satisfaction with the sale. have signed a note purporting to bind a principal Hall v. Stephens, 66 Mo. 670; Shroyer v. Nickell, 55 id. without authority, the note is simply void. The agent 284; 7 Cent. L. J. 182; Devorse v. Snider, 60 Mo. 235; thus doing may be liable in another form of action, Baldwin v. Snowden, 11 Ohio St. 203; Ackert v. Pultz, but certainly not in a suit upon a contract into which 7 Barb. 386; Purcell v. Goshorn, 17 Ohio, 105; Pilcher
he never entered. This seems to be clear upon prin5. Smith, 2 Head, 208; Martiu v. Develly, 6 Wend. 9. ciple, and is supported by a decided preponderance of Alkison v. Henry. Opinion by Sherwood, J.
authority. It may be considered as well settled law
in this State and Massachusetts. In New York, whilo ASSIGNMENT-CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TORT.-A cause
the earlier decisions were opposed, the later are in faof actiou against a railroad company arising under the
vor. It is not necessary to cite all the cases or discuss 43d sectiou of the Railroad Law, for double damages them in detail. The following will give all the light for the killing of live stock, cannot be assigned so as to
necessary: Harper v. Little, 2 Me. 14; Stetson v. Patinvest the assigneo with the right to sue. Citing Wal
ten, id. 358; Noyes v. Loring, 55 id. 408; Ballou v. len v. Railway Co., 74 Mo. 521, and distinguishing Talbot, 16 Mass. 461; Abbey v. Chase, 6 Cush. 54; Jefts Smith v. Kennett, 18 id. 154. Snyder v. Wabash, St.
v. York, 4 id. 371; 8. C., 10 id. 392; Bartlett v. Tucker, Louis & Pac. Ry. Co. Opinion by Norton, J.
104 Mass. 336; Bray v.Kettell, 1 Allen, 80; 1 Pars. Cont. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-INTERMARRIAGE BETWEEN
68, and note. Thus it is evident that the defendants WAITES AND NEGROES.-The act making intermarriage
cannot be holden upon the note declared upon, even between white persons and negroes a felony (Rev.
though they had no authority to bind the principal; Stat., $ 1540) is no violation of the 14th amendment of
por cau they be holden upon the count for money bad the Constitution of the United States. Neither is that
and received; for whatever money they had was clause of the act which provides that the jury trying a
received as agents, and disposed of for the benefit of
their principal before the commencement of the suit, party accused of such a marriage may determine the
and without notice to withhold it. Simpson v. Garproportion of negro blood in either party to the marriage from the appearance of such person, a violation
land. Opinion by Dauforth, J. [See 47 Am. Rep. of that clause of section 63, article 4 of the Constitu
818.] tion of Missouri, which provides that “the General
FRAUD-RESCISSION OF CONTRACT-OFFER TO REAssembly shall not pass any local or special law regu- STORE-DAMAGES.—To rescind a contract of sale of lating the practice or jurisdiction of or changing the
merchandise, which has been delivered, ou the ground rules of evidence in any judicial proceedivg.
of fraudulent representations of the seller, the buyer privileges and immunities of citizens of the United
must restore the goods to the seller, if they are of any States " protected by the 14th amendment are such as value, or to offer to restore them under such circumare secured to them by the Constitution of the United stances as to show an existing intention and ability to States and laws enacted in pursuance thereof, and the deliver them into the possession of the seller, or if he right of unrestricted marriage is not among these. The Slaughter House cases, 16 Wall. 36; Minor v. Happer
*To appear in 76 Maine Reports.
elects, to accept them. When such a contract has not standing sold the note, and G. was compelled to pay been rescinded the buyer is liable for the contract it, principal and interest, to the purchaser. Held, that price, less the damages occasioned by any fraud that by the sale of the note C. violated a trust, and thereby was practiced upon him in the sale. Sharp v. Ponce. forfeited his right to retain that portiou of the pur Opinion by Walton, J. (See am Alb. L. J. 218, 375. chase-money received from G., and that assumpsit for -ED.]
money had and received was a proper form of action
in which to recover it. Moore v. Marshall. Opinion by ELECTION--ELECTOR DISFRANCHISED--UNREASONABLE Walton, J. ACT OF ELECTION OFFICERS-REV. STAT., CH. 4, S 63— DAMAGES.-(1) The action of selectmeu in refusing to
INJUNCTION-JUDGMENT NOT ENJOINED-RES AD. permit a legal eleotor to vote on the ground that his JUDICATA.-A court of equity never enjoins a judg. name was checked; that another man had falsely per- ment except upon some distinct equitable ground sonated him and voted under that name, is unreason
which neither was nor could have been set up as a deable, and renders them liable to an action under R. S., fense to the action at law. An issue once tried in a ch. 4, S63. (2) It appears to us that the question was one
court of law is never retried by a court of equity. The upon which men of common intelligence, acting fairly parties have had their day in court, and they must and without bias, could not be expected to take oppo- abide by the result. The rule was correctly stated by site sides. The defendants claim that they were jus. Chief Justice Marshall iu Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, tified in their action, because two gentlemen present, ? Cranch, 332. It is that any fact which clearly shows who were lawyers, declared that the plaintiff should
it to be against conscience to execute a judgment at not be permitted to vote, as it would invalidate the law, and of which the complainant could not have election; and fearing that effect, they refused the availed himself at law, or which he was prevented vote. We cannot conceive how two lawyers, giving from availing himself of by fraud or accident, untheir opinions upon their responsibility as such, could mixed with any fraud or negligence of himself, or his express such an opinion. It must have been inspired agent, is ground for enjoining the judgment; but a by political interest or bias rather than by legal learn- legal defense, actually made at law, is not ground for ing. The idea that because a fraudulent ballot bad enjoining the judgment, though the court may think been put into the ballot box, which, if it would change it ought to have prevailed. “It is now, I apprehend the result, any tribunal having power to determine well settled,” said Redfield, J., in Emerson v. Udall, the election would reject, the reception of the honest, 13 Vt. 477, “that a court of equity will not examine legal ballot would invalidate the whole election, is, to
into the foundation of a judgment of a court of law, say the least, unique. No elector can be legally dis- upon any ground which either was tried, or migbt franchised by being falsely personated by another as in have been tried in the court of law. The judgment of this case. The defendants were so advised by several a court of law conclusive upon all the world as to all lawyers, among them the solicitor for the town, whose matters within its cognizance. If a party fail by not opinion was given at the request of the chairman presenting his defense, when he should have done it, of the board, and that they ought to permit be cau have no redress in a court of equity. Much the plaintiff to vote. (3) Where the act of the select- less can he expect relief in a court of equity, when he men in refusing to permit a legal elector to vote is un- has had a full trial at law upon the very grounds which reasonable, but not corrupt, punitive damages will not he now wishes to urge anew.” To the same effect is be awarded in an action agaiust them by such elector. 2 Story Eq., $ 894, and High on Inj., $ 96. Bachelder F. Pierce v. Getchell. Opinion by Libbey, J.
Bean. Opinion by Walton, J.
MASTER AND SERVANT-EVIDENCE AS TO FITNESS OF EMPLOYEE-JURY CANNOT DECIDE FROM SIGHT.-(1)
CRIMINAL LAW. In an action for persoual injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the employer in retaining the services of a fellow servant who was careless, and
VERDICT-RECEIVING IN ABSENCE OF DEFENDANT whose carelessness caused the injury, a witness testi
-RIGHT TO POLL JURY--SUNDAY NOT COURT DAYfied that he considered the fellow servant slow and
ERROR.-The jury returned their written verdict in a lazy, and not fit for the service, he was so slow, and
criminal case to the judge of the court on Sunday, in witness had so informed the agent of the employer;
the absence of the defendant and his counsel, and and in answer to a question, if tbe fellow servant was
without either of them being called or notified. The competent and careful in the performance of his du- judge received the verdict, and discharged the jury ties, witness testified: “Yes, he was always careful
from further consideration of the case. At the openabout his work." Held, that this evidence was not
ing of the court on the next day (Monday), the desufficient to establish the negligence of the employer.
fendant asked the court to recall the jury, and allow (2) The jury is not authorized to decide that a person
him the opportunity of having the jury polled in his is unfit to be employed as a brakeman on a railroad, on
presence; but the court denied the application. The account of what they saw or supposed they saw, or
defeudant also moved that the verdict be set aside and could read in his face and manner while testifying be
stricken from the files; that the jury be recalled, and fore them as a witness, and determine from that alone
directed to return a proper verdict; all of which mothat the railroad company was negligent in employing tions, as well as the motion for a new trial, were oversuch a person. Corson v. Maine Cent. R. Co. Opinion
ruled. Held, that peither the defendant nor his coun
sel, in the absence of notice, were bound to be in atby Walton, J.
tendance upon the court on Sunday on the coming in MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED-TRUST-SALE OF NOTE.
of the jury; and held further that on account of the -C. and G. were tenants in common of a parcel of action of the court in discharging the jury, and refusreal estate. C. conveyed his party to G. and took G.'s iug to poll the jury in the presence of the defendant, note therefor. Both parties agreed that the sale was the judgment must be reversed and a new trial one only in form, that (. was to coutinue the actual granted. When a verdict is announced the defendant owner of one-half and that G. should not be required may require that the jury be polled. A party bas, to pay the note. G. bold and conveyed a part of the in all cases, the right to know whether the supposed land and paid to C. a portion of the purchase-money verdict is the verdict of each juror, or only one of the received therefor. C. then in violation of the under jury; and examining the jury by the poll is the only
recognized means of ascertaining whether they were It also appeared that divers rooms, closets aud drawers
INSURANCE LAW. bet 1962
right to have the jury polled, it is sufficient to answer
that peither he nor his counsel, in the absence of FIRE-LOSS-LOCATION OF GOODS.—Where a policy nd the as
notice, were bound to be in attendance upon the court of fire insurance in one clause insures household goods,
02 Sunday. Dies dominicus non est juridicus-the furniture, clothing, etc., contained in a "two-story 05. Hva
Lord's day is not a court day. While it is lawful for frame dwelling-house and additions, occupied as a court to receive a verdict on Sunday, yet as the parties
residence," and in another clause insures “horses, hare the right to poll the jury, the court ought not to buggies, hay, etc., and barn tools," the insured cannot puliwa
maše such disposition of the case, in the absence of recover for the loss of the household goods by burning
the parties and counsel, as to prevent the exercise of of the baru into which they had been removed on ac138 POFTEA seci deresz
this right. Stone v. Bird, 16 Kans. 488; Norvell v. couut of a previous fire in the dwelling-house. HartDeval, 50 M0.272; Reid v. State,53 Ala. 402; Stewart v. ford Ins. Co. v. Farrish, 73 Ill. 166; Annapolis, eto., R. People, 23 Mich. 63; James v. State, supra;1 Bish. Cr.
Co. y. Baltimore Fire Ing. Co., 32 Md. 37 ; S. C., 3 Am. Pro., &$ 270, 272. Sap. Ct. Kans. State v. Muir. Opin- Rep. 112; and Bryce v. Lorillard Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240.
ion by Horton, C. J. (32 Kans. 481.) [See 4 Neb. 86; Sup. Ct. Mich., Nov. 19, 1884. English v. Franklin Fire OS 28 Am. Rep. 484; 67 N. C. 283; 88 Penn. St. 189; 49
Insurance Co. Opinion by Cooley, C. J. (21 N. W.
FIRE-FORM OF POLICY-WAIVER OF PROOFS OF LOSS.
ance policy agreed to be issued, it will be assumed that bastard child by reason of the complainant's connec- the form stipulated for was the form then in use by tion with other men at about the time it was begotten, the company, and that the terms of such policy were other facts may be shown sufficient to satisfy the jury embraced by implication in the contract. Hubbard v. that the accused is the father. State v. Pratt, 40 Iowa,
Hartford Ins. Co., 33 Iowa, 325. See also De Grove v. 63. In other words, the jury are to determine from Insurance Co., 61 N. Y. 594. Acts or omissions relied all the evidence before them whether or not the ao- upon as a waivor of preliminary proof should, to concused is the father of the child. The first instruction stitute such waiver, take place before action is brought therefore was properly refused. The second instruc- if not before the time has expired within which the tion also was properly refused. The proceeding is es
insured has a right, under the terms of the contract, sentially a civil one, and the rules of evidence govern- to supply such proof. Beatty v. Lycoming Co. Mut. ing civil actions are applied. Carter v. Krise, 9 Ohio St.
Ins Co., 16 P. F. Sınitb, 9; Fland. Ins. 593, note. Be40%; Glenn v. State, 46 Ind. 368; State v. Evans, 19 id. sides in this case no waiver was pleaded. Lumbert v. 22; Byers v. State, 20 id. 47; State v. Brown, 44 id. 329.
Palmer, 29 Iowa, 104. Sup. Ct. Iowa, Oct. 24, 1884. In this State a preponderance of evidence is all that is Smith v. State Ins. Co. Opinion by Adams, J. (21 N. required in civil actions, even in cases of fraud. Pat- W. Rep. 145.) rick v. Leach, 8 Neb. 538; Search v. Miller, 9 id. 30;
FIRE PREMISES “VACANT UNOCCUPIED."Kopplekom v. Huffman, 12 id. 101. In Patrick v.
Where the owner of a dwelling, who after a tenant has Leach, p. 538, it is said: “In a civil action the law
vacated the premises, moves his furniture into and does not require the jury to be satisfied beyond a
cleans up the house with an intention of making it his reasonable doubt, as in criminal cases." The court
residence, but during that time does not actually oodid not err therefore in refusing to give the instruc
cupy it at night, subsequently leaves it temporarily on tion. Sup. Ct. Neb., Nov. 18, 1884. Altschuler v. Algaza.
business, and puts a party in possession until his reOpinion by Maxwell, J. (21 N. W. Rep. 401.)
turn, the house cannot be considered as vacant or PRACTICE-ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO KILL-REVER
unoccupied,” within the meaning of a clause in the SAI-SECOND TRIAL FOR ASSAULT-CHALLENGE.--When
policy providing that if the insured building shall “be a party bas been convicted of an assault with intent to
or become vacant or unoccupied” the policy shall be
void unless consent in writing is indorsed thereon, and kill, and on appeal such conviction has been reversed on the ground that the evidence would not sustain
he will be entitled to recover for a loss occurring durBuch charge, he can only be tried a second time on the
ing such temporary absence. In contem plation of same information for the offense charged therein, and
law her occupation of the house would have been conif the court put him on trial for a simple assault, and
tinuous. Stupetski v. Translantio Fire Ins. Co., 43 restrict the number of his challenges of jurors to five,
Mich. 373; S. C., 5 N. W. Rep. 401; Cummings v. Ag
ricultural Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 260; Herrmau v. Mera conviction for the assault will be reversed, and tbe
chauts' Ins.Co., 81 id.184; Phonix Ins.Co.v. Tucker, 92 accused discharged. Sup. Ct. Mich., Nov. 20, 1884. People v. Comstock. Opinion by Champlin, J. (21 N.
111.64 ; Dennison v.Phonix Ins. Co., 52 Iowa, 457; S. C., 3 N. W. Rep. 500. The only question then is whether
the fact that for the few days she remained at home LARCENY
- EVIDENCE PRISONER'S POSSESSION OF before starting on the business trip she did not sleep BURGLARS' TOOLS.--On a trial for larceny from a
in the house or take her meals there should make any dwelling-house, it appeared that defendant was ar- difference. Under the circumstances we think not. rested in the vicinity of the locus delicti immediately
The insured had taken possession of the house, as the after the commission of the larceny, under suspicious jury must have found, for the purposes of permanent circumstances tending to connect him with the crime. occupancy. She had moved in her household furniture
W. Rep. 384.)
and other goods, and was cleaning and doing other pect of a change of government throws the bar into a work preliminary to living there in person. Nothing
wild state of excitement, because it means & shuffling apparently was wanting to complete personal posses- of the cards and a partial redistribution of business. sion, except that she lodged and took her meals at her Of a truth the advent of a conservative ministry father's, a few rods off. Those facts were not conclu- would produce changes more than usually great in the give against her occupancy. It could not be justly personnel of the law officers. In plain words, no one claimed, we think, that if a family, for the purposes of knows who the fortunate men would be. In all prob. cleaning and interior decoration, were thus to sleep ability the master of the rolls would be elevated to the and take meals at a neighbor's, while busy in the woolsack, and Mr. Edward Clarke, Q. C., who has house in working hours, they would in doing so vacate distinguished himself in the House of Commons of the house. But the case of such a family would be late, would become a law officer of the crown. But analogous to that of the party insured in this case. his health is delicate, and it is doubtful whether he
to blow Cases are cited and relied upon on the part of the de- would be able to sustain for any length of time the feuse which we think are distinguishable on their wear and tear of official life. After him and Sir Hardfacts. Wustum v. City Fire Ins. Co., 15 Wis. 138, was inge Gifford all is mystery. There is hardly a single the case of a policy of insurance, which by its terms barrister who has distinguished himself as a conservarequired unoccupied property to be insured as such. tive, in the House of Commons, and who is also well The building insured was not occupied, but was not known for forensic ability. This perhaps may account
se taa insured as unoccupied, and the policy was held inop
for the fact that the conservatism which has apparerative for that reason. In Ashworth v. Builders', ently been lying dormant in many leading juniors is
helt eto., Ins. Co., 112 Mass. 422, it was decided that merely beginning to show signs of awakening. using a house for the purpose of taking meals in it was Of all the changes which the advent of a conservanot occupancy within the meaning of an insurance tive ministry must produce for barristers, none would policy. Occupancy,"
" it was said, “implies an ac- be more welcome than the new lord chancellor. Lord tual use of the house as a dwelling-place.” “The in- Selborne has been a failure, not because he has made surer has a right, by the terms of the policy, to the many mistakes, but because he has given himself no care and supervision which is involved in such an oc- opportunity of making any. It is quite an eveut for cupancy.” This we think is true; but as we have seen, him to sit in the Court of Appeal, where his predeces. it does not follow that the presence of the occupant in sors sat frequently. When he does sit, the society the building should be continuous and unintercepted. papers, the bugbear of all great men, or perhaps I The necessity for temporary absences on business, or should say of all men in great places, hope sarcastifor family conveuience or pleasure, is recognized, and cally “that he is not fatigued by the unwonted exerthe insured is understood to contemplate an as
tion." Yet it cannot be said that the duties of the sent to them. In Corrigan v. Connecticut Fire Ins. office are more laborious now than they used to be in Co., 122 Mass. 208, the question was whether a tenant former times. Sometimes it is suggested that the who had occupied a house, but had moved with his lord chancellor has enough to do in drafting bills for family out of it and was taking his meals elsewhere, Parliament, but the suggestion is obviously based upon could be said to be occupying it merely because some either a low estimate of his lordship's power of work, of his furniture remained in it, and be had not sur- or a mistaken idea of the nature of the work which he rendered the key? It was very properly held he could in fact performs. The lord chancellor does not draft not. Herrman v. Adriatic Fire Ing. Co., 85 N. Y. 162, bills, he settles them after they have been drafted by was still more unlike the present case, and calls for no his subordinates, and they iu tbeir turn are rewarded comment. Sup. Ct. Mich., Nov. 19, 1884. Shackelton by County Court judgeships, like Mr. Chalmers, or v. Sun Fire Office. Opinion by Cooley, C. J. (21 N. become standing counsel to the Board of Trade in W. Rep. 343.)
bankruptcy cases. Therefore there is no sufficient
reason why a lord chancellor should not make his FIRE-ALIENATION OF PROPERTY.-A policy of fire
mark in the history of the curious development of insurance provided that if the building was sold or case-law as lord chancellors were wont to do in times transferred, the policy would be rendered void, unless
of historical celebrity; but of Lord Selborne it can ratified to the assignee thereof by the written conseut
only be said that his foot-prints are small, and the imthereon, signed by the president and secretary, or any pressions thereof are light. The place of the lord two directors of the company. Held, that a sale of the
chancellor as the presiding genius of English law has buildings without a transfer of the policy, rendered
been lost-perhaps not for ever-but certain it is that the policy void. Sup. Jud. Ct., Maine. Gould v.
the late Sir George Jessel, to say nothing of the pres. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. Fire Ins. Co. Opinion by
ent accomplished master of the rolls, will be rememLibbey, J. (76 Me. 298.) [See 29 Am. Rep. 180; 27 id.
bered when the name of Lord Selborne has long been 582; 28 Eng. Rep. 162; 30 Alb. L. J. 457.-ED.)
forgotten. I should add that the present lord chan
cellor has incurred much unpopularity by his reluotOUR LONDON LETTER.
ance-up to the present moment well sustained-to add to the number of existing queeu's counsel.
The Durham divorce case is attracting an infinity of WEEK ago the bar was in a state of absolute fer- notice. Imprimis, it is a case of first impression;
ment. There was every indication of a possible secundo, the parties engaged are of the highest rank. change of government. And even when the ministry The judgment is not pronounced at the moment of saved defeat by the narrowest of majorities, there writing, nor will it largely affect the public feeling in was much talk upon the prospect that the Cabinet the matter. Lord Durham seeks for a declaration might resign. Even at the present moment when the that his wife was never married to him, on the ground intelligible desire to hold on to office till the last gasp that when she went through the ceremony of marhas been plainly expressed, no one knows what a day riage with him she was, in plain words, mad. Whether may bring forth. It is possible that in spite of the the allegation be true or not nobody knows, and there wishes of their colleagues two of the most prominent are two diametrically opposite classes of opinions. But members of the government may secede, and if Sir upon one point there is universal unanimity. Lady William Harcourt and Mr. Chamberlain do secede it Durham is now hopelessly and incurably mad, and can hardly be that the ministers will continue to hold every body agrees that when either party to a marriage office. It is probably unnecessary to state that a pros- is ascertained to be in this deplorable coudition, the
same party ought, pro facto, to be freed from the
pasture, at a price agreed upon. The cattle were bonds of marriage. A somewhat scandalous side in- turned into defendant's pasture iu the month of Aucident of the trial has had the effect of throwing some gust. From May to that time, Texas cattle, direct light upou the rights of the public to enter the law from Texas, had been depastured in the same field. It courts. It is certainly the fact that since the courts is an established fact, that when native cattle aro were transplanted to the Strand, there has been a turned into a pasture where Texas cattle have been great increase of difficulty in this respect. More spec- pastured, they will take the Texas cattle fever, which tators have come to the fore, and ingress is barred for generally proves fatal. The emissions or droppings those who have business, and for those who have not, from the Texas cattle infect or poison the grass, from by a band of absolutely irresponsible officials. To which the native cattle become infected. The plaintthese gentry, Sir James Hannen has administered a iff turned eighteen head into defendant's pasture, and severe blow over the kuuckles, because by barring they all died of Texas fever. There was evidence on the entry of a certaiu.eccentric student at law, who is the trial, which tended to prove that the defendant a bad imitation of Oscar Wilde, they were the cause of did not know that Texas cattle would poison the pasa most unseemly uproar.
ture. Judge Dwight charged, on this point, that “the It is with the greatest pleasure that I am able to an- jury must find, to authorize the plaintiff to recover, nounce that the subject of codification is again to the that the defendant knew that the effect of pasturing fore, and that its advocates are in no mood for trifling. Texas cattle was to render the field dangerous for pasThe draft Criminal Code has hung fire so long that turing northern cattle thereafter.'' people had begun to believe tbat the law officers had Under the charge, the verdict was for the defend. no heart in the projected reform; but I am informed ant. and verily believe that the reason of delay is to be My contention is, that the defendant in offering his found in the imperfections of the draft. The presid- field to grazers warranted, among other things, that ing genius of the drafting was Mr. Justice Stephen, the grass was wholesome, and not contaminated with whose reputation as a criminal lawyer is waning, any foreign substance that would kill the cattle grazwhereas for his knowledge of common law he has ing thereon. I fail to find any authorities bearing op never been famous. On dit that he has only thrice this precise point. I found a case which held that the since his elevation to the bench been confirmed by the vendor of hay was liable in damages to the vendee, if Court of Appeal, and your correspondent in person the hay was unwholesome and not fit for food for has, in the course of the present year, heard him lay horses, although there was no express warranty as to down that it was not negligence in a sheriff's officer to the coudition of the hay. I entered the case in my sit in the front parlour of an iun at his ease while the pocket diary, and subsequently lost it, and after furniture upon which he has levied execution is being diligent search, have been unable to find it agaiu or carried off at the rear. In the same case he ruled that my diary. where an officer has been guilty of a breach of statu- It occurred to me, that in your law researches, you tory duty the onus of proving damages lies upon the may have seen the same case, and can refer me to it, plaintiff. On the very same day he characterized as if not that you could put me on a line of cases that "rubbish " a statement of law of which he was com. would throw light on the question involved in the pelled to admit the precision later. Therefore I be action. lieve that a good Criminal Code would have been con- In 1 Bell Com., p. 458, I find this under the head of verted into law long ago. Certaiuly the commercial Agister of Cattle: classes will not wait long for a commercial Code. They “The place of custody must be secure against ordiare agitating vigorously, and barristers, having little to nary accidents incident to the property to be predo, are helping them by showing that the difficulty of served. The "grazing field must be properly secured the task is not invincible. With a view to elucidate against escape, and free from pit-falls and dangers the problem, one of my acquaintance, who has studied which may lame or injure them. The livery stable much under German professors, is publishing an his- must be wind and water tight, so as not to expose the torical commentary on both the criminal and com- horse to cold or wetness, besides the food being wholemercial Codes of Germany; I have just received a some and the hostler fit for his undertaking. A failprospectus of a similar book upon French lines; there ure in these respects will expose the owner of the is lying before me a copy of Marine Insurance, codi- field, the stable or other place of custody, to a claim of fled ten years ago, and altogether I am looking for damage, thus occasioned by his fault.” ward to the time when the interest of my law library Why should not the grazing field contain wholesome shall be antiquarian merely.
grass, and be free from poisons that sicken or kill LONDON March 4, 1885.
Very truly yours,
JAMES Wood. CORRESPONDENCE.
GENESEO, N. Y., March 18, 1885.
[See French v. Vining, 102 Mass. 132; S. C., 3 AGISTER'S WARRANTY OF WHOLESOMENESS OF
Am. Rep. 440; Lukens v. Freiund, 27 Kans. 664;
S. C., 41 Am. Rep. 429.-Ed.]
BLISS ON SOVEREIGNTY.
Every once in a while appears a book from some "A pasturer is not an insurer against any kind of stray professor of jurisprudence, which shows that the loss
, but he only engages to exercise the care of a pru- speculative side of juristic science is not wholly negdent person in respect to the property intrusted to lected in this busy land. Of all the elements of mod. him."
ern law, sovereignty is the most important, for the The case is this: The plaintiff was the owner of sovereign makes the law. Professors of political scicattle, and hired them pastured in the defendant's
ence do not all agree as to what the definition of sov