judicial organization, containing a chapter on the judicial power, one upon the plan of the courts, and one each upon the District, Circuit and Supreme Courts. Book II treats of the subjects of jurisdiction, and embraces the following titles: Admiralty. Bankruptcy, Collision, Copyright, Crimes, Equity, Extradition, Habeas Corpus, Patents, Prize Revenue, Salvage, Seamen, Seizures, Shipping. The topics of procedure in original jurisdiction and procedure in appellate jurisdiction are left to a succeeding volume. The favorable judgment pronounced by the profession upon the previous editions will be found to be fully justified by the present one, which appears to be carefully written and as exhaustive as is possible within the limits of two volumes. The citations are reasonably numerous, and seem to cover the lately reported cases of importance. The work is well printed and bound, but the proof reading is, in some respects, careless, a number of blank references not being filled up. See pages CXX, CXXI, etc., where references to other parts of the work are left incomplete.

Reports of Cases Decided by the English Courts, with Notes and References to Kindred Cases and Authorities, by Nathaniel C. Moak, Counselor at Law. Volume XIII. Containing Law Reports, 10 Common Pleas, pp. 438–501; 13 Cox's Criminal Cases, pp. 49-110; 2 Crown Cases reserved, pp. 154-179; 19 Equity Cases, pp. 501-633; 20 id. pp. 1-352; 10 Exchequer, pp. 213-254; 7 House of Lords, pp. 481-605; 6 Privy Council Cases, pp. 381-476; 3 Probate and Divorce, pp. 235-252'; 10 Queen's Bench, pp. 291-421; 2 Scotch Appeals, 431-535. Albany, N. Y.: William Gould & Son. 1876.

The necessity of volumes of selected reports is daily increasing. Already the number of volumes of decisions has outreached the limit of any private library, and only a few of the public libraries make any pretense of containing all the reports. Yet the great bulk of the cases which go to make up both the English and our own reports, are of only local value, and many of them are not even of that value, but are, so to speak, put in to fill up. Yet there is in each volume, among the mass of decisions of local interest and of no interest at all, a few important cases which the profession and the courts must have access to. This circumstance led, some years since, to the establishment of the well-known American Reports, which give only the cases of general value decided in the higher courts in the various States, and the series of which the book before us forms the 13th volume, was commenced shortly afterward, with the purpose of doing a similar work for the English courts. The flattering success with which this series has met indicates that the profession fully appreciate its value. The volumes thus far have been very extensively annotated, and the present one is fully up to the standard of its predecessors, both in the number and excellence of its notes. Among the cases of interest we note the following: Henderson v. Stevenson, p. 141 (S. C., 12 Alb. L. J. 136), holding that a condition on the back of a passage ticket purchased and paid for by a passenger on a steamer exempting the carrier from liability for loss of baggage, and which provision was not seen by the passenger, did not relieve the carrier from such liability. Steuart v. Robinson, p. 165, was a case where a Scotch marriage did not hold. It was certainly a unique marriage, the whole ceremony consisting of these circumstances. After a family supper, one of the party, a bachelor, put a ring on the finger of one of the daughters, a spinster, and said to her, "Maggie, you are my wife before heaven-so help me, Oh God!" The two thereupon kissed each other and Maggie said, “Oh

Major!" Their health was drunk and they were forthwith "bedded" according to an obsolete Scotch fashion. Issue was thereafter born. The Scotch Court of Session held the marriage valid, but the House of Lords reversed the decision. The alleged husband was a baronet with a large estate, Maggie's father a small tradesman. Wright v. London & N. W. Railway Co., p. 245, holds that where the owner of an animal brought by a railway train was, in order to save delay, with consent of the company's servants, assisting in shunting a car, the company not having help enough to do the work promptly, and while doing so was injured by the negligence of the company, he was not a mere volunteer, but was rightfully on the company's premises, and it was liable for the injury. Reg. v. Taylor, p. 427, holds that cases cited in books on medical jurisprudence are not admissible even to form part of an address to the jury. In British Mut. Investment Co., p. 556, it is held that a bill will not lie against a solicitor for negligence in investigating a title. Leader v. Moody, p. 681, decides that where it is covenanted in a lease that a building shall be used only for theatrical entertainments, plays, balls, operas, concerts, masquerades, assemblies, and such other theatrical purposes, it cannot be used for a religious meeting. Taylor v. Taylor, p. 692, is an interesting case on advancements, and states what are and what are not such. In the case of In re Macleay, p. 719, a devise "to my brother J. on condition that he never sells out of the family," was held valid, and J. could not give a marketable title to a stranger to the family. It would be difficult to determine what annotations are the most valuable, but those on fixtures, p. 14; those in relation to the rights and liabilities of persons at public meetings, p. 382; those in relation to infanticide from criminal neglect, at p. 425; those in relation to the liability of attorneys and solicitors to their clients, at p. 559; those concerning the law as to tenants in common, at p. 644; those about loans, at p. 690, and those upon a question of partnership, at p. 839, have attracted our attention. We cannot, however, acquiesce in the method of selection adopted by the editor. Too many cases of at least doubtful general interest are given, and the valuable cases given might, so far as the statements of fact are concerned, be frequently abbreviated. The case of Phillpots v. Boyd, p. 229, though only the headnote and a brief statement appears, is of no conceivable interest to anybody in this country, even to those interested in the history of church ornamentation, for whose benefit it is inserted. There are several other cases of no more value to the profession inserted in full. The volume is well printed and bound, but lacks a table of cases cited, which no volume should be without.

The American Law Review, January, 1877. Editors, Moorfield Storey and Samuel Hoar. Vol. XI-No. 2. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1877.

This standard publication begins the new year with a number of unusual interest. The opening article is upon the civil service of the United States, and is rather political than legal in its character. The next essay, upon the effect of the rebellion on southern life insurance contracts, treats upon a topic which has been brought into considerable prominence by the recent decisions of the Federal Supreme Court. "The Molly Maguire Trials" is an entertaining resume of the history of a most remarkable series of crimes and the steps which led to their detection and punish

ment. An article upon Some Rules of Evidence," which is the concluding essay in the number, is carefully written, and cannot fail to prove of interest to all who read it. The digests of the English reports and of the various State reports are, as usual, excellently done. The summary of events is throughout readable, and contains many brief comments upon passing events. The editors do not approve of the course of Mr. Blaine in his attack made last fall upon a United States court for deciding according to the law. In that they probably coincide with the legal profession throughout the country. There are numerous other topics which have engaged the attention of the profession here and abroad that are commented upon. Every portion of the number will be found worthy of attentive perusal.

QUERIES.

To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

SIR-In an action of ejectment for non-payment of rent, based upon one of the old Van Rensselaer leases, where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent in arrear, can the defendant avail himself of the provisions of section 385 of the Code and serve an offer with a view to affect the question of costs?

In what form should the offer be made? Would such offer in any way prejudice defendant's right to redeem within six months after judgment, as provided by statute?

An answer will oblige many attorneys in this section. Yours truly, LAWYER.

JOHNSTOWN, N. Y., January 12, 1877.

[It has been held that the offer mentioned in section 385 may be made in any and every action. Bridenbecker v. Marin, 13 How. 203; Keese v. Wyman, 8 id. 88; Marble v. Lewis, 53 Barb. But as the judgment in ejectment, if for plaintiff, must in any case be that the plaintiff recover the possession of the premises, we cannot see how the question of the amount of rent in arrear can affect the result if there be a violation of the covenant by the non-payment of reut. The form of offer would seem to be one to allow judgment for the possession of the demised premises and costs, as that is the only kind of judgment provided. 2 R. S. 505, § 31. We cannot see how the offer could prejudice any right which the lessee would have under 2 R. S. 506, § 33, allowing a redemption "at any time within six months after possession of the demised premises shall have been taken by the landlord.-ED. A. L. J.]

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE STATUTES REVISION A REQUEST FROM MR. THROOP.

To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

SIR- Will you allow me, through your columns, to request my professional brethren to delay for a short time circulating and signing petitions for the report of the Code of Remedial Justice, or taking final action upon the various propositions relating thereto, which are, as I am informed, pending before many of the Bar Associations throughout the State?

Those assaults are, almost without exception, substantially unfounded; and now that their bill is completed, the commissioners propose to remove by an amendatory act, which they will immediately prepare and submit to the legislature, all reasonable and many unreasonable grounds for dissatisfaction with the act of 1876.

Before commencing that work, I have prepared a communication to the judiciary committees of the legislature, discussing the assaults upon the act of 1876, and specifying and explaining the amendments which the commissioners will propose to the legislature, for the purposes stated. That communication is now in press; and I will have enough copies printed to supply gratuitously the various Bar Associations who may seasonably apply for them, and to distribute a limited number of copies among members of the bar who do not belong to such associations. I expect that the necessary copies will be printed by or before the 10th of February, and I am confident that a careful perusal of the communication will remove from the minds of candid and well-informed lawyers, the prejudices which may have been aroused by the attacks to which I refer.

The Bar Associations who desire copies of the pamphlet, will please address at once, Messrs. Weed, Parsons & Co., Albany.

Respectfully yours,

MONTGOMERY H. THROOP.

NEW YORK, January 23, 1877.

VOTES FOR AN INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE. To the Editor of the Albany Law Journal: SIR.- In your issue of December 9, 1876, you published a communication from J. Kopelke, Esq., on the subject of voting for an ineligible candidate, in which he cites the case of Price v. Baker, 41 Ind. 572, and People v. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451, the former of which holds that the eligible candidate, “having the highest number of legal votes, though that number may be less than the number of votes cast for the ineligible candidate, and less than a majority of all the votes cast at such election, is entitled to the office;" and the latter holding, "that of two candidates, of whom the one was ineligible, and the other did not receive a majority of the votes cast, neither was elected."

In April, 1868, there were three candidates for the office of judge of the 7th District Court of New Orleans, viz.: Fish, Collins and Earhart. Fish brought an action against Collins for the office. The court said: "The plaintiff does not allege that he received a larger number of the votes cast at the election than either of his competitors; but, on the contrary, he admits that the defendant received a greater number of votes than he did. The election of the plaintiff did not depend upon the ineligibility of his competitors to the office, but on the will of a majority or plurality of the legal voters of the district expressed at the ballot-box." This case is reported in the 21st Annual Rep., 289–290. In Fish's case, the plaintiff alleged that he "received the largest number of votes of any candidate eligible to the office."

The case differs from the New York decision, so far as it holds that the eligible candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast, notwithstanding the ineli

Yours respectfully,

ROBERT J. CALDWELL. MONROE, LA., January 12, 1877.

THE

COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.

HE following decisions were handed down in the New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday, January 23, 1877:

Motion granted, with costs of appeal up to time of motion and $10 costs of motion - Bridenbecker v. Farrell.

Remittitur amended by making it to appear that the guardian ad litem appeared in this court by consent, and giving costs to all parties, appellants and respondents, payable out of the estate - Kalbfleisch v. Kalbfleisch.- - Judgment affirmed, with costs-Embury v. Sheldon; Wells v. Holbrook; Barber v. Sterling. Order of Supreme Court modified by releasing the appellant, Casselt, from the purchase of lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, and compelling him to complete the purchase of lots 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and releasing the appellant, Higgins, from his purchase of lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, and compelling him to complete the purchase of lots 48 and 49, and as modified affirmed, without costs to either party as against the other in this court-Mott v. Mott (two cases).- - So much of the order as gives costs against Potter reversed and the residue of order affirmed, with costs against Burroughs only - People ex rel. Burroughs v. Brinckerhoff. Order affirmed and judgment absolute for defendant on stipulation, with costs -- Miller v. Burke.

A

NOTES.

NEW edition of General Hallock's "International Law" is to be published in London. The last edition appeared in 1861. Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, of which a "fifth" edition has just been published in England, is called by the Law Times, "one of those abominations which have acquired respectability and toleration simply because it was originated by an eminent lawyer, and has been revised by lawyers of equal eminence." Mr. Fitzjames Stephens is doing in England what some competent person ought to do in this country, preparing a Digest of the Criminal Law.

In pursuance of a previous call for a convention for the purpose of forming a State Bar Association in Illinois, representatives of the local bars from a majority of the counties in the State assembled at the old State House, at Springfield, on Thursday, Jan. 4. The convention was organized by the election of Hon. Anthony Thornton, for many years a judge of the Supreme Court of the State, president, and O. F. Price, of Galesburg, as secretary. A constitution was adopted and a formal organization made and the following officers chosen for the coming year: President — Ex-Judge Anthony Thornton. Vice-Presidents — A. J. Kuykendall, 1st District; Judge Gillespie, 2d District; R. E. Williams, 3d District; Jno. S. Bailey, 4th District; Judge J. W. Cochran, 5th District; Judge G. W. Pleasants, 6th District; Stephen R. Moore, 7th District. Recording and Corresponding Secretary – W. L. Gross. Treasurer - Milton Hay. Executive Committee Isaac Clements, 1st District; Wm. B. Cooper, 24 District; Jas. C. Conkling, 3d District; George Edmonds, 4th District; Jno. C. Pepper, 5th District: Jas. M. Beardsley, 6th District; Judge J. B. Bradwell, 7th District. Committee on Grievances-J. M. Bailey, 1st Circuit; Jessie Hildrup, 2d Circuit; James Shaw, 3d Circuit; Col. H. L. Vallette, 4th Circuit; Chas. Dunham, 5th Circuit; Chas. Blanchard, 6th Circuit; Maj.

S. W. Munn, 7th Circuit; O. F. Price, 8th Circuit; H. W. Wells, 9th Circuit; B. T. Schofield, 10th Circuit; Jefferson Orr, 11th Circuit; Thos. M. Shaw, 12th Circuit; Franklin Blair, 13th Circuit; Jno. McNulta, 14th Circuit; Joseph Mann, 15th Circuit; Wm. E. Nelson, 16th Circuit; E. A. Wallace, 17th Circuit; J. M. Riggs, 18th Circuit; Jno. J. Rinaker, 19th Circuit; S. W. Moulton, 20th Circuit; E. Callaghan, 21st Circuit; Chas. H. Thomas, 22d Circuit; B. B. Smith, 23d Circuit; Robt. P. Hanna, 24th Circuit; F. M. Youngblood, 25th Circuit; S. P. Wheeler, 26th Circuit; Wm. E. Vocke, C. C. Bonney, E. B. Sherman, Cook county. Committee on Law Reform - Malison Y. Johnson, 1st Circuit; Chas. Kellum, 2d Circuit; J. K. Edsall, 2d Circuit; Judge Botsford, 4th Circuit; I. N. Bassett, 5th Circuit; L. B. Crooker, 6th Circuit; C. A. Hill, 7th Circuit; Jno. J. Glenn, 8th Circuit; D. McCulloch, 9th Circuit; Jno. H. Williams, 10th Circuit; Wm. L. Vandeventer, 11th Circuit; W. F. Henry, 12th Circuit; H. Loring, 13th Circuit; J. H. Rowell, 14th Circuit ; Silas S. Whitehead, 15th Circuit; Juo. W. Smith, 16th Circuit; Wm. Fuller, 17th Circuit; Jno. G. Henderson, 18th Circuit; Jno. A. McClernan, 19th Circuit; Geo. R. Wendling, 20th Circuit; Benson Wood, 21st Circuit; S. D. Phelps, 22d Circuit; Geo. W. Wall, 23d Circuit; Jas. A. Creighton, 24th Circuit; A. J. Duff, 25th Circuit; W. S. Allen, 26th Circuit; Thos. F. Withrow, W. C. Goudey, Judge M. Bangs, J. S. Cooper, W. P. Black, Cook county. After the adoption of several resolutions in aid of the purposes of the association, and an extended discussion, the meeting adjourned. One resolution is worthy of consideration by our own State Bar Association. It is this: "Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to have the proceedings of this meeting, together with the constitution of the association, printed in pamphlet form, and to mail a copy thereof to each member of the bar of this State whose name appears upon the rolls of the Supreme Court."

The following rules in bankruptcy have been adopted by the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, to take effect February 1: Notice of an intended application to the United States Circuit Court for the exercise of the general superintendence and jurisdiction conferred by section 4986 of the Revised Statutes of the United States must be given within ten days after the entry in the District Court of the order complained of, by filing such notice in the clerk's office of that court and serving the same on the adverse party. The application must be made within thirty days after the entry of such order, or within such further time as may be allowed by an order of the district judge, filed within said thirty days in the clerk's office of that court. An application cannot be made at a later period. Except where special provision is otherwise made by statute, or where the aggrieved party proceeds by bill in equity, the application must be by petition filed in the office of the clerk of the court and verified by oath. The petition must designate the order complained of and set forth the facts of the case, so far as may be necessary to show the errors, whether of fact or of law, alleged to have occurred in the District Court, and must point out such errors specifically and the relief sought therefor. The petitioner must, within five days after filing the petition, procure from the clerk of the Circuit Court a certificate of the filing of such petition, designating the order therein complained of by its State, and file

the same in the office of the clerk of the District Court. Within ten days after filing the petitioner must serve a copy thereof on the adverse party, who may file an answer thereto, verified by oath, within ten days after such service, and must, in that case, serve a copy of the answer on the petitioner within the further period of ten days. The petitioner may, within ten days thereafter, file a reply to the answer and serve a copy thereof on the adverse party. The clerk may once extend either of these periods by order made before the expiration. The application will be heard upon these papers only unless the court shall of its own motion otherwise direct. As soon as the case is disposed of the clerk of the Circuit Court must certify the order to the District Court.

The Windsor Hotel Company of New York has had the baseness and hardihood to refuse to pay the bill of Mr. William R. Martin, attorney and counselor at law, for legal services, and as a natural consequence Mr. Martin has sued the company. To indicate the total depravity of the company, the Tribune gives some of the items of Mr. Martin's little bill, which we copy as valuable precedents for our readers. The bill has a sum total of $60,000, and covers a period of nearly two years. Among the thirty-five items are the following: For drawing the assignment of the lease by Mr. Daly to the company he charges $1,000. For drawing the papers as to the organization of the company, etc., he charges $1,000. For his sevices in three foreclosures he charges $10,000. In four other foreclosure suits, each for $8,500, he charges $500 apiece, and in a fifth, in which the amount in suit was $5,000, he still charges $500. In suits by the Windsor Hotel Company he charges $500 and $1,000. In the matter of difference as to the Windsor Hotel he asks $2,500, and in relation to negotiations as to one mortgage he asks $15,000. Finally, for general counsel fees and "for saving the property," he asks $20,000. It appears from an affidavit of a member of the company that since the commencement of the action Mr. Martin has given additional counsel and advice to the company, the charge for which, we suppose, he will include in a supplementary complaint. The advice was "that there was no use of contesting his claim in this action; that it would

man. But if I was on trial for my integrity or my life, I would rather have my case submitted to a jury of twelve lawyers than to a jury of twelve clergymen. The legal profession have a keener sense of justice than is found in the sacred calling. It is hard for an attorney to decide upon what principles he shall act. On one side Lord Brougham says: The innocence or guilt of your client is nothing to you. Save your client at any hazard;' but no right-minded lawyer would adopt such sentiments. On the other haud, Cicero says: Never plead the cause of a bad man,' forgetting that the greatest villain in the world has a right to a fair trial. There are two or three forms of temptations to which lawyers are peculiarly exposed. The first is the tendency to skepticism. Controversy is their business. With others it is incidental or accidental, but with them it is perpetual. They have little chance Another of getting the faith that is above reason. temptation is to Sabbath-breaking. What you can't do without working on Sunday, God doesn't want you to do, and you need twenty-four hours of Sabbatic rest. The lawyer who surrenders one day in seven, robs three- God, his own soul and his client. The observance of the laws of God pays in hard dollars. Another temptation is the use of artificial stimulants. Only those who have addressed audiences know the

nervous exhaustion that follows such efforts." He said he had seen them go down by scores. among others, the flower of the American bar," whose last words were: "This is the end. I am dying on a borrowed bed, covered by a borrowed sheet, in a house built by public charity. Bury me in that field yonder, that I may not be crowded. I have always been crowded."

Dr. Flint, the "teapot medium," has been discharged from Ludlow street jail, in New York. Hon. J. Milton Turner, United States "Consul-General and Minister Resident" to the Republic of Liberia, a gentleman of color, has brought action against the proprietors of the Astor House, New York, under the Civil

Rights law, for refusing to entertain him as a guest.

Mr. A. B. Crane, a New York lawyer, happened to appear as counsel against a Mrs. McMahon in an action she was prosecuting. In retaliation for such ap

would never go back on each other.

Rev. T. Dewitt Talmadge preached at the Brooklyn Tabernacle, on the 21st inst., a sermon upon lawyers. His text was from Titus iii, 13: "Bring Zenas, the lawyer." He said: "The legal profession has often had for its members ardent supporters of Christianity, as Blackstone, Wilberforce, the emancipator, Frelinghuysen, Benjamin F. Butler, former Attorney-General of New York, Charles Chauncey, the leader of the Philadelphia bar, Chief Justices Marshall and Campbell, and Sir Thomas Moore, who died for the truth on the scaffold. There has come down a sort of prejudice against this profession. Lawyers compel men to pay debts that they don't want to pay; and as long as they do this and they always will-there will be classes of men who will affect to despise this profession. I have had a long and wide acquaintance with lawyers; I have found them in all my parishes; I tarried three years in the office of one, and I have yet to find a class of men more generous and straightforword than the legal profession. There are men in this profession, as there are in all, who are obnoxious to both God and

and otherwise, voluminous letters, postal cards, etc., in which he is not flattered as to his moral reputation or ability. She, however, sends stamps without number to pay for return communications, so that the epistolary persecution is not without its redeeming feature.

The latest case of the "insanity plea " has occurred in San Francisco, where a professional bondsman, indicted and tried for furnishing "straw bail," pleaded insanity as a reason for swearing that he was worth $6,000, when such was not the case.. A bill introduced into the United States Senate the other day recalls a will which seems to stand alone among testamentary documents. The late Charles Fox, of New York city, after providing for the payment of his own debts, gave all the residue of his property to the United States government to enable it to pay their debts. The exact amount of the gift has not yet been ascertained. The bill referred to accepts the Fox bequest, and authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to cause the property to be sold and pay the proceeds to the United States Treasurer.