Слике страница
PDF
ePub

not to be error to allow a witness to testify whose name is not on the indictment; and where no notice has been given that the witness would be called, it is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court. Bulliner v. People, 95 Ill. 394.

time, at Arrowsmith on Sunday, until he appeared at Banks's place on Thursday, the 20th-the day they had agreed upon to be at Holloway's, and have the marriage take place. When he came to Banks's on Thursday forenoon he did not come there for the purpose of carrying out his agreement of the

It is also claimed that improper remarks were made by the State's attorney in his opening state-week before. This is manifest from his conduct. ment of the case to the jury, and also that counsel assisting the State's attorney used certain improper language in his closing argument to the jury. Without repeating what was said, we find nothing in the remarks of counsel not warranted by facts in the case.

It is also contended that the court erred in refusing defendant's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eleventh instructions. None of the instructions given or refused are set out in the abstract. Upon referring to the transcript of the record however we find that the court gave for the defendant thirty-five instructions, and refused eleven. As none of the instructions are numbered as they appear in the record, it is difficult to deter

mine which refused instructions defendant's counsel insist should be given. But, be that as it may, the instructions given for the defendant contain all the law necessary to be given to the jury to enable them to pass on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. There was therefore no necessity for giving any of the instructions which the court refused.

But it is said the evidence was insufficient to es

tablish the guilt of the defendant. Upon this

branch of the case but little need be said. It is be

yond question that Susie Hoover was pregnant at the time of her death. The post mortem demonstrated that fact. That the defendant was her se

ducer, and the cause of her ruin, was fully established by his own letters read in evidence before the jury. There is abundance of evidence that he had agreed to marry this unfortunate girl. Indeed it was admitted in his evidence. On Thursday, Oct. 13, the week before the death of the deceased, the defendant, in the presence of the Holloways, agreed upon the time and place of the marriage Oct. 20, at their residence in Farmer City. The condition of the deceased had become known to her sister, Mrs. Banks, and the defendant knew and realized that her condition could not be concealed from others. Immediate action of some kind was required. If the defendant desired to marry the girl, she was of age, and he could have done so at any time, regardless of any objections from her father or any member of the family. But it appears from the evidence that he did not intend to marry her. After returning with her from Farmer City, where the day of the marriage was fixed, he saw the deceased but once, and that was only for a short

On Wednesday the defendant was at Bloomington, and learned that the father of the deceased would leave that evening for Missouri. He then started at once for Ellsworth, and the next day, before noon, he arrived at Banks's. Upon his arrival he at once went to the room he had occupied, and packed and strapped his trunk. Up to this time he had no conversation with the deceased. He then went down stairs, and the family sat down to the dinner table. He declined to eat. After dinner was over, a conversation, in whisper, was had between defendant and Susie. He then went up stairs, and she soon followed him, to the room he had occupied. The two were in that room alone from five to ten minutes, and while there the sick sister across the hall heard them scuffling, and Susie crying. She also heard the remark, "Don't, Jake!" three times in succession. Doubtless that was the time that deceased was induced by the defendant to take the fatal dose which she disclosed in her dying statement that the defendant had given her to bring on her monthly sickness. Immediately after this occurrence the defendant left, and within thirty minutes the deceased was in convulsions, which soon resulted in her death. From the evidence it is beyond question that the death of Susie Hoover was caused by strychnine poison, and the evidence all points to the defendant as the person who caused her to take it. The anxiety and uneasiness manifested by the defendant after leaving the Banks place, during

the entire afternoon, until he heard of the death of Susie Hoover, are inconsistent with his innocence. When Banks left the defendant at the depot in Ellsworth, defendant said, "If any thing happens to Susie or Anna," "to let me know." He had left a niece, Miss Willoughby, at the same place, but he felt no anxiety in regard to her. It was the Hoovers who were weighing on his mind. About three o'clock that afternoon Mr. Bone, a neighbor, came in after a doctor, and the defendant inquired of him what was wrong at Banks's. Bone said he supposed Anna was worse. The defendant then said, "If any thing happens to Mr. Hoover's girls" to let him know. "Susie Hoover, especially." About one hour later the defendant called at the doctor's residence and inquired, “Did the doctor go out there?" Again, on the same afternoon, he inquired of a party at the post-office in reference to the Banks's, and about six o'clock he met a young lady who made her home there, but who had been

away since morning, and asked her who was sick at Millard Banks's. She told him, "Anna." He replied, "There must be some one else sick." The doctor had then returned, and defendant went to him with the same inquiry; but receiving no satisfactory answer, he returned to the young lady, and met a man named Reed, who informed him that Susie Hoover was dead. Why all this anxiety and inquiry, unless he knew that Susie Hoover had taken something which might endanger her life?

staff. This is so plain that it is difficult to credit the suggestion lately made through the press to the effect that some members of the judiciary are at the present time active factors in political combinations for the distribution of rations. If such an evil prevails, it is attributable, I believe, to the mistaken view, honestly entertained, that a judge pending his term of office may lawfully liquidate his political debts. This view is too erroneous to be long ad

hered to and must soon be overruled and abandoned.

The true theory is that every judge is politically insolvent. He has suspended political business and has no assets. His creditors must indulge him until his judicial career has terminated. Then, if he will, he may accumulate fresh capital and settle with his friends to the utmost farthing. He need not forget any of his obligations while temporarily disabled from meeting and discharging them. His retentive memory and their own robust hope should content his friends so long as his disability continues. They have no cause to complain of a delay which they themselves rendered necessary by retiring him from the political arena and consigning him to the judicial cloister. To expect a judge to settle political scores while he is still a judge is hardly less incon

at the altar.

It appears from the record that a chemical analysis of the stomach was made about three months after the death of the deceased, and no detectable quantity of strychniue was found, and some importance is attached to this fact in the argument. From an examination of the evidence it will be found that, as a general rule, when death is produced from strychnine poison, traces of the poison may be detected in the stomach, but such is not always the case. Where a dose is given which is only sufficient to produce death, and death ensues, no trace of the strychnine will be found in the stomach. The reason for this, as disclosed by the evidence, is: Where the exact amount of poison is given to produce death, the poison will be destroyed in doing its work. It will be absorbed and elimi-gruous than dunning a priest when he is officiating nated. It will change its relation so that it cannot be detected. From a half to two grains of strychnine are ordinarily regarded as sufficient to produce death. Here the defendant gave to the deceased what might be termed an exact dose. No portion of that taken will be found in the stomach, for the obvious reason that it was all taken up by the blood and carried to the nerve centres, where it produced its faithful work. Moreover, one-fifth of a grain may remain in a full stomach, and it cannot be detected by the most scientific test that may be resorted to. There may be other exceptions to the general rule. The fact therefore that the chemist in this case failed to detect traces of poison, does not overcome the undisputed evidence in the case that the deceased came to her death from strychnine poison.

[ocr errors]

I have said that a judge has no assets; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he takes a political homestead on all his assets for and during his term of office. In either case the same consequence results, for in either case he is, and ought to be, completely independent of his political creditors. It is needless to add that, being restrained from paying his debts, he has no right to make donations. In short, he should consider himself in temporary seclusion from active politics, with no political functions save to vote as he pleases like any other citizen.

"Having said this much by way of laying down sound doctrine touching the official order to which I belong, I beg to refer briefly to an article which appeared in the columns of a weekly newspaper re

We perceive no reason for disturbing the judg-flecting upon the judicial ability and competency of ment of the Circuit Court, and it will be affirmed.

JUDGES IN POLITICS.

my colleague and brother, Judge Samuel Lumpkin, and suggesting that he ought to resign. Of the imputed impropriety, or supposed impropriety, which provoked the article I shall say nothing, hav

HIEF JUSTICE L. E. BLECKLEY of Georgia, ing no personal knowledge of the merits or demerits

significant of that such knowledge

to the Atlanta Constitution on the subject of judges taking an active part in politics. Although written with special reference to Georgian affairs, this letter contains some general truths that are equally applicable elsewhere. Chief Justice Bleckley says:

"Judicial names should not appear on the roll of militant politics-certainly not on the commissary

ing the qualifications, integrity and industry of Judge Lumpkin as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Toiling with him for more than three years, I cannot be mistaken in pronouncing him eminently fit in all respects for the position he occupies. Nature has endowed him with an apt and ready judicial mind; he is learned in the law and

his application, energy and industry cannot be surpassed. He is anxious to decide correctly every case, and no man on or off the bench is more impartial or more loyal to truth and justice. It is a grave mistake to suppose or suggest that he ought to resign. On the contrary, were he to do so it would be a calamity to the State. In my opinion, the work of his life should be judicial, and that alone. I sincerely wish him evil fortune in politics so that the State may long have his services on the bench, if not by his own preference, by a sort of indirect compulsion through mortification of his political ambition, if he has any."

W

PRACTISING LAW AT 91.

ILLIAM COOKSON CARPENTER, ninety-one years old and the oldest lawyer in this city, appeared yesterday before Judge Van Wyck of the City Court as counsel for M. H. Reynolds, a judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings. There was nothing interesting in the case. The point of interest was the energy shown by the venerable counsellor. Mr. Carpenter stands erect, walks without a cane, has a firm voice, is only slightly bald, and has a full beard. He has an expression very much like that of Charles O'Conor in the closing days of his practice at the bar. "You are pretty nearly old enough to retire from practice," the reporter suggested to him. "I don't think so, as long as I am well and vigorous as I am now," he replied. "I have been practising at the bar for nearly seventy years, and I feel about as well as I ever did. I have never been sick a day in my life." "You ought to own a part of Manhattan Island, having been here so long," was remarked. "I do own a part of it, luckily, and I did own a great deal more. I am not obliged to work. I prefer to work. It is what keeps me alive." And, with a smile and a bow, the nonogenarian lawyer hurried from the court-room.-N. Y. Sun, June 12.

Abstracts of Recent Decisions.

ATTORNEY-DISBARMENT-FELONY - PARDON. Revised Statutes, article 226, authorizing disbarment of an attorney on proof of a conviction of a felony, does not allow it where there has been an unconditional pardon. Scott v. State (Tex.), 25 S. W. Rep. 337.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.-In Wilson v. King, decided in the Supreme Court of Arkansas in April, 1894 (26 S. W. Rep. 18), it was held that the conviction and sentence to death of a person in another State do not affect his right to sue and recover in a civil action in the State of Arkansas, citing Story Confl. Laws (8th ed.), §§ 619-625.

CONFLICT OF LAWS- CHINESE MARRIAGES. A marriage solemnized in China according to the laws and customs thereof, but while the bridegroom is in America, is not valid in America. In re Lum Lin Ying, U. S. D. C. (Ore.), 59 Fed. Rep. 682.

DIVORCE-DESERTION.-A husband, who does not expostulate with his wife when she informs him of her intention to separate from him, who removes a portion of the household furniture to quarters which he has rented, leaving with her another portion, to be taken by her where she sees fit, and who only once asks her to return, and never remonstrates with her for her absence, must be held to have acquiesced in the separation, and is not entitled to a divorce on the ground of obstinate desertion. Payne v. Payne (N. J.), 28 Atl. Rep. 449.

DYING DECLARATIONS.-In People v. Crews, decided in the Supreme Court of California in March, 1894 (36 Pac. Rep. 367), it appeared that the deceased, the morning after he was shot, and not then expecting to die, made, signed and verified a statement. The same evening his doctor told him he could not recover. He was then reminded of the statement, and said that he did not wish to change it, and signed an appended clause, affirming that he made the statement with full knowledge and sense of his impending death. The statement was not reread to him, but it appeared that he clearly remembered its contents. It was held that this was a good dying declaration.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR-CIVIL DAMAGE ACT. --In an action for selling liquor to plaintiff's husband when drunk, defendant cannot complain of an instruction that the jury should not find for plaintiff unless they were satisfied that defendant had good reasons for believing the husband drunk when selling him the liquor. Solomon v. State (Miss.), 14 South. Rep. 461.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.-The killing of another because of a past attempt by him to debauch the slayer's wife is not justifiable homicide. It is only where there is an absolute necessity that a killing be perpetrated, to prevent adultery, that the case will stand upon the same footing of reason and justice with other cases of justifiable homicide, under section 4334 of the Code. Farmer v. State (Ga.), 18 S. E. Rep. 987.

PARENT AND CHILD--Loss of SERVICE.-The right of action of a father for an injury to his minor child is based on the parental relation, not that of master and servant, and he is entitled to be indemnified for his expenses in the care and cure of the child, and for loss of services past and prospective. Netherland-American Steam Nav. Co. v. Hollander, U. S. C. C. of App., 59 Fed. Rep. 417.

Correspondence.

RELIEF TO LITIGANTS, HUMOROUSLY CONSIDERED. Editor of the Albany Law Journal:

A lawsuit is a moving object that starts at its maximum speed, and by imperceptible degrees, through years of mental unrest, is brought to physical rest. It is begun by a retainer whose payment marks this maximum of speed, for in commercial transactions time is of their essence, and plaintiff innocently presumes that remedial justice bears time in mind as of their essence and pays the retainer with the despatch of modern enterprise, his eyes upon the end in view, himself ignorant of the legal barriers with which the distance may be gauged.

It takes time to draw the complaint, and when it is served with the summons, the statute gives defendant twenty days to answer, to which plaintiff's attorney will add twenty or forty days, for defendant's lawyer is so irresistible a fellow, and the court will add twenty or forty days, as it too has found defendant's lawyer an irresistible fellow. Why should a layman's needs intercept the flow of professional courtesy? Defendant answers, but a day too late to notice the cause for the next term of the court, so the cause must be and is noticed for the term succeeding the next, fourteen days' notice being required. It is then placed upon the calendar and receives a number, say 3892, highest number reached upon regular call, 1715. It must work its way up, and as it does so, plaintiff visits his attorney first weekly, then monthly, then annually. Terms come and pass. The court sits four or five hours a day. The first hour or so is spent in calling the calendar and in developing the faculty of office boys to apply for adjournments or pass causes without reason. Some days an entire case is tried, possibly two. Meanwhile the memory of the case in point is fading from plaintiff. He is just about to shelve it with the battle of Marathon, when it appears as the nineteenth cause upon the day calendar.

The

tiff's attorney know the ground is sufficient. cause is set down for a day certain. Plaintiff and his witnesses return to their places of business, the attorneys to their offices, the papers to their pigeonholes. Six weeks after the so-called day certain, the cause reappears as number 21 upon the day calendar, the plaintiff and his witnesses are resummoned, the papers reunpigeon-holed. Plaintiff's attorney redeciphers the complaint. This time plaintiff seems particularly favored, for both parties answer ready; but they answer ready for at least a month, every day, while the causes ahead of them are being tried; and every day the plaintiff and his witnesses attend, and the business that each one of them neglects each week at least equals the plaintiff's claim in the suit. The principle however remains, courage is kept up, the cause is at last reached and tried and a verdict is rendered for plaintiff, with a stay however of thirty days to defendant, and sixty days to make a case upon which the cause can be heard upon appeal. As the cause is tried the end of April, the sixty days renders it impossible that the appeal should be heard before the fall; and although in the fall the judgment is affirmed at General Term, an appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals, but too late to place the cause upon the calendar of that court made up the beginning of the fall, although in plenty of time for the calendar made up the succeeding fall, the succeeding February, to which the cause is heard in the Court of Appeals, and a new trial is ordered because of an error committed by the learned trial judge in the haste of the trial and overlooked by the General Term in the volume of its labors. The error does not render it impossible for plaintiff to succeed upon a new trial; but the point raised is one of interest to the judges and the lawyers as the opinions and briefs fully show.

Victory to plaintiff now would merely in part reimburse him for outlays and losses, and defeat would involve him in a large bill of costs. Had his demand been met when the suit was brought, its payment would have been in the course of his business. Not so now. Now, the memory of the battle of Marathon is of greater moment.

Plaintiff's attorney notifies his client to attend, subpœnaes the witnesses and takes home the papers to study them over. He must even study the complaint. Being its author of course aids him some- Of course every lawyer in the city of New York what in its interpretation and construction and knows that the cause "at bar" reached the new partially remedies the obliterations of time. The trial ordered with exceptional speed. And probplaintiff, his witnesses and his attorney appear be- ably the generations of lawyers would never have fore the court at the call of the calendar. Does the evolved this system, had it not seemed to them a trial proceed? Certainly not. Defendant's attorney source of enjoyment and utility; and if that be its is still an irresistible fellow. He states his ground image to their minds, should the system be disturbed for an adjournment, i. e., "This is the first time by the Constitutional Convention now in session at the cause has appeared upon the day calendar." Albany? It would seem not, if at the same time That does not appear sufficient ground to plaintiff, the litigant might be relieved of the result of the but he is an ignorant layman. The court and plain- | thing in which he has lost all interest. How might

[blocks in formation]

A

Notes.

BOY in La Harpe, Ill., was charged with cruelty to animals in tying a string to the leg of a turtle. His lawyer contended that the turtle was not an animal, "but a reptile of the snake species." The court agreed with him and the defendant was discharged.

Attorney-General M. J. Moloney of Illinois, who is attacking the trusts of that State in the courts, was born in Ireland in 1849, and is a graduate of the University of Virginia. On leaving Virginia he settled in Ottawa, Ill. Before his election as attorney-general he served as city attorney of Ottawa and as State's attorney for La Salle county. He has always been noted for the fearless and vigorous performance of his official duties.

A correspondent of the Vossische Zeitung writes from Tunis that the last executions of criminals by hanging were so slowly and clumsily accomplished as to afford terrible spectacles, and the government of the Bey applied to England for a model of the apparatus there used. The replies to this application came slowly and evasively, so that a Tunis joiner, a European, was intrusted with the making and carrying out of a practical gallows. He succeeded in the attempt, but a new difficulty presented itself, for no Arab would consent to use the European machine, and its maker was requested to find a European who would hang criminals at 60f. a head. It seems that a man was found, but public opinion was absolutely contrary to his undertaking the job. The Arabs will only be hanged by an Arab.

In the issue of the 26th ult., you note the passage of a law by the Legislature of the State of New York providing for a "uniform system of examination for admission of attorneys to the bar." Judging from the article in question, you are not aware that a similar system is in force in this State. By the provisions of chapter 63, Laws of Wisconsin, 1885, the old so-called system of examination for admission to the bar was done away with, and in lieu thereof it was provided that the Supreme Court should annually appoint a commission or board of five attorneys to meet at least once annually at the Capitol, and at such other tinies and places within the State as the court should direct, for the purpose of examining all applicants for admission to the bar. The board after such examination being satisfied that such applicant possesses sufficient learning in the law, and is otherwise qualified, a certificate of qualification for admission to the bar is issued to him. On the production of this certificate, the party named therein can on motion be admitted to practice in the circuit courts of this State. The David Dudley Field was very frugal in small board of examiners, are paid $10 per day and exmatters, the result of his humble circumstances in penses by the State, on vouchers properly certified youth and the paternal inculcation of wholesome by one of the justices of the Supreme Court. No New England thrift, but in large matters he was fee is charged the applicant. As you will observe, generous. A little more than a year ago he wrote this system has been in force in this State for nine me--certainly with no design of having it heralded, years, and has given very general satisfaction. It at least in his life-time: "It may interest you to has also resulted in a much higher standard of know, since I have been charged with parsimony, qualification for admission to practice law in this that in my chagrin at the failure of the bar of the State. We gratefully acknowledge our indebted-country to keep its promise, made at a meeting in ness to the Empire State for what she has done in the direction of "reforms necessary and essential to the legal profession." But in this particular direction we think we are pioneers.

Yours truly,

C. E. ESTABROOK.

MILWAUKEE, June 4, 1894. [Our correspondent has been a regular reader of the LAW JOURNAL for upwards of twenty years, and his interest in legal education is probably due in a measure to this fact. He was a member of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1885, and was the author of the law in question.-ED. LAW JOURNAL.]

Washington, after the death of Chief Justice Taney, to look after his family, I gave to the clerk of the Supreme Court my personal bond to pay to a daughter of the chief justice $500 a year, during her life or mine, I forget which; and that I paid this annuity from the date of the bond in 1873 till the daughter's death in 1891, so that I actually contributed out of my private funds $9,000 to save the credit of the bar. I had never seen the two daughters, nor the chief justice himself, except on the bench, and I loathed his decision in the Dred-Scot case." Mr. Field was an inteuse optimist, and had the most profound religious convictions.—Irving

Browne in the London Law Journal.

« ПретходнаНастави »