Abstracts of Recent Decisions. ADMINISTRATORS

APPOINTMENT

BY FRAUD.—

Letters of administration granted to the second son of decedent upon the representation that he is the only son, will be revoked for fraud, notwithstanding the eldest son may since have filed a renunciation of his right to the appointment. (Lutz v. Mahan [Md.], 30 Atl. Rep. 645.)`

ture that it was as absurd as it was inhuman to condemn a man to the gallows for stealing 40s. from a dwelling-house. The State still labored under the medieval belief that the severity of a sentence was more deterrent than the certainty of its infliction, for these extravagant penalties were not commonly enforced, and a petty offender sentenced to be hanged might escape with three months' imprisonment. The death penalty for misdemeanors was therefore no check upon the lawless. They might be sent to the gallows, but they counted on getting scot free. Yet, with this knowledge before them, the House of Lords would not vote for Romilly's bill to abolish capital punishment for the offence of stealing 5s. from a shop. Lord Ellenborough thought that, if any change of punishment were necessary, "it should be transportation for life." It is to be noted, by the way, that the bitterest opponents of reform in the criminal law have almost always been the lawyers in the House of Lords. Lord Ellenborough solemnly assured his colleagues in the upper chamber that, if they abolished the death penalty for shoplifting they must abolish it also for horse stealing, which would be perfectly ludicrous." Sir James Mackintosh, who followed Sir Samuel Romilly as a reformer of the criminal law, failed to persuade the Legislature that a man ought not to be hanged in 1820 for wounding a cow or spoiling a tree. In the ministerial ranks the first reformer was Sir Robert Peel, and in his day there were forty kinds of forgery on the list of capital offences. The fiercest conflict was necessary between the old spirit and the new-between the philosophers and the lawyers-before, in 1835, a man or woman could be saved from the halter for the misappropriation of a letter.-Law Times.

The overt act, as hostile demonstration of the deceased against the accused, must be proved before the introduction of evidence as to the dangerous character of the deceased. (State v. Green [La.], 16 South. Rep. 367.)

CHATTEL MORTGAGE.-A mortgage on a stock of merchandise, conditioned on the payment of certain debts "when due," provided that the mortgagor was to remain in possession until the condition was broken. The debts at the time of the execution of the mortgage were past due, and the mortgagee took possession the day after the mortgage was executed. Held, that the mortgage was valid as against creditors of the mortgagor. (Kub v. Garvin [Mo.], 28 S. W. Rep. 847.)

COMBINATION BY INDIVIDUALS. -A refusal by a number of pilots who own and operate their own boat, and, who have the boat properly manned, to allow a pilot designated by the pilot commissioners to cruise on her, is not a combination to prevent a person from executing the duties of a pilot, within act of April 5, 1881, providing for the forfeiture of the license of a pilot entering into such a combination. (Morris v. Board of Pilot Com'rs [Del.], 30 Atl. Rep. 667.

CRIMINAL LAW "THREATS."-The fact that threats had been made against a defendant under and indictment for murder, by his victim, indicative of a motive on the part of the latter to take defendant's life, will not render his crime one without express malice, and so bailable. (Ex parte Taylor [Tex.], 28 S. W. Rep. 957.)

DEPOSITION FAILURE TO ANSWER.-Interrogatories in a deposition of a party to an action will not be taken as confessed, on his refusal to answer, unless the refusal was willful. (Rushing v. Willis [Tex.], 28 S. W. Rep. 921.)

-

EMINENT DOMAIN-ELEVATED ROAD. Where a city council is by statute authorized to provide for the location of any railroad" within the city limits, and "to pass all ordinances proper or necessary to carry into effect the powers granted," an ordinance giving a railroad the right to construct its road along a certain route, subject to certain restrictions and limitations, is, when formerly accepted by the railroad company, as binding upon the company as a statute. (Tudor v. Chicago & S. S. Rapid Transit R. Co. [Ill.], 39 N. E. Rep. 136.)

New Books and New Editions.

ANDREWS' STEPHEN'S PLEADINGS.

By James De Witt Andrews, of the Chicago bar. This edition of the work is one which should receive careful consideration and kindly attention from members of the bar who desire a general work on the principles of pleading in civil actions. The carefulness with which the work has been prepared, and the thoroughness with which the editor has gone into the different subjects, makes it a book of more than ordinary utility. The first part deals with the Development of Procedure, the Joinder of Parties and the Election of Remedies. The second part deals with the Proceeding in an Action from its Commencement to its Termination. The third part is devoted to the Principal Rules of Pleading, and embraces Rules which tend simply to the Production of an Issue; Rules which tend to Secure the Materiality of the Issue; Rules which tend to produce Singleness or Unity in the Issue; Rules which tend to Produce Certainty or Particularity in the Issue; Rules which tend to prevent Obscurity and Confusion in Pleading; Rules which tend to prevent Prolixity and Delay in Pleading, together with certain Miscellaneous Rules, and the last chapter deals with remarks on the merits of the system of pleading. This work should be of great value, even in a code State, and even with the visions of simplification and reform of the code which are in the air, for it contains rules which are of the very foundation of any code of procedure, and which must be known to understand thoroughly and to appreciate a code of procedure. It is a work which should be of

considerable aid to students; in fact it should be so

to all who desire to have a complete knowledge of the rules of procedure, whether they practice in a code State or not. From its reception it would seem to have received the most favorable consideration from the members of the bar throughout the country. The price of this work is $4. Published by Callaghan & Co., 114 Monroe street, Chicago, Ill.

GARDNER'S REVIEW IN LAW AND EQUITY. This is a work which is designed for students who are making their last review preparatory to taking their final examination for admission to the bar. The value of a work of such a character is to

general principles are stated, and, for the purpose we have mentioned, we think it should be of value and assistance to students. The work is edited by George E. Gardner, of the Massachusetts bar, and is published by Baker, Voorhis & Co., 66 Nassau street, New York.

A SYSTEM OF LEGAL MEDICINE ALLAN MCLANE HAMILTON AND OTHERS.

The importance of medical expert testimony has been of late, by now celebrated trials in this State, more demonstrated than ever, and the change in the action of death causes by the advances made in modern weapons and scientific discoveries, has created a want of medico-legal literature which deals with such subjects and reflects all the light that can now be given by the status of the present scientific world. This the author of "A System of Legal Medicine" has, with the assistance of able colaborators, each a specialist in the subject of which he writes, sought to do. For years, and in the main principles still, the old authorities from Casper down have had no antagonists, but "the old order changeth," and subjects which, when written upon by those writers, were then looked on in the light of great discoveries and scientific advance, are now, owing to the further strides by the searchers after hidden truths" concerning the human body and its ills, carried far beyond the first positions, so that medical jurists have had to supplement the accepted writings on legal medicine with the discoveries of the day. This book does this in itself, and brings up to date, in a most presentable form, the study of medical jurisprudence. It would be difficult to single out articles in it for special commendation when all are so well done, and where, evidently, care and experience have been brought to bear on the preparation of each monograph, special distinction would be invidious. The large number of new cases bearing upon the points discussed, cases which have not before been brought to the attention of the profes sion, is a most valuable feature in the work, and the arrangement of the subjects shows most excellent care on the part of the editor in chief. The selections of the various contributors is wisely done. Each known for his ability in the subject assigned him, makes the whole a collection of valuable treatises upon the general subject. The book has a brilliant future before it, and is one well adapted for the use of both doctor and lawyer. In two volumes. E. B. Neat, New York.

were resolved to uphold monarchial institutions, and were anxious to assist Spain in subduing her independence-seeking colonies in South America. This fact presented a question which, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, was the most momentous which had been offered since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Monroe, who was President in 1823, when the matter assumed formidable shape, at once sought the advice of Mr. Jefferson, who was then living in retirement at Monticello. Mr. Jefferson's reply was positive. 'Our first and fundamental maxim should be,' he said, 'never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cisAtlantic affairs.' Mr. Jefferson, it might be added, in the same letter, favored the acquisition of Cuba to the United States. In previous correspondence Mr. Jefferson had, while President, expressed the same hostility to foreign intervention, so that the doctrine which is now associated with the name of President Monroe really belongs to his predecessor. The emphatic language of Mr. Monroe in his message to Congress on December 2, 1823, left no doubt, however, of the intentions of this government, and the frankness of the utterance commanded general attention. He deemed the occasion proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, the following: That the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

"Discussing the attitude of Spain and Portugal toward the South American nations, and the policy of the allied powers, President Monroe said: 'We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part| to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration

and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

"Concluding his discussion of this subject, President Monroe asserted that it was the duty of this government not to interfere with any of the internal concerns of European powers; to hold toward them a frank, firm and manly policy, meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. Then he added: 'But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently

and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference.'

"Such was the Monroe doctrine. It is

interesting to add, however, that never has this doctrine received the official or formal sanction of Congress. In the same session during which the message was delivered, Mr. Clay presented in the Senate a resolution embodying the president's views, but it was never brought up for action or discussion. In the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the principle was, to say the least, partially abandoned. Eminent authorities have also differed as to the constitutionality of Mr. Monroe's declaration. Mr. Clayton of Clayton-Bulwer treaty fame; Mr. Cass, Mr. Clay, Mr. Seward, President Polk, Secretary Fish, Secretary Frelinghuysen, and Secretary Blaine are among those who have indorsed it. Mr. Frelinghuysen went so far as to assert, on the ground that the decision of American questions pertains to America itself, that the arbitration by European States of South American difficulties would not be sanctioned by this government, even with the consent of the parties interested. Secretary Fish summed up the influence of the Monroe doctrine in these words: 'It has exercised a permanent influence upon this continent. It was at once invoked in consequence of the sup