TABLE OF CASES. REPORTED, NOTED, ABSTRACTED AND DIGESTED. Page. 297 50 193 76 93 177 257 208 74 357 416 Adarson v. Paterson..... Alexander. NicNear..... Allen v. O'Donald ... Anglo Californa Bank v. Ames .. Application of Thirty-fourth street Ry: Co., In re Archer v. State .... Arniel y, Chicago, Arnold v. Greene.... Aronson F. Fleckenstein Atkins v. Sherbine.... Avery v. Creigh... Bains v. Syracuse, etc., R. C............... Ballis v. Drake..... Baltimore & Y, Turnpike Co. v. Leonhardt... Bank for Savings in the City of New York v. Grace... Bank of America v. Shaw. Barber v, Abendroth..... Barnett v, Mayor, etc., of Paterson ..... Barth v. Lines .... Bartholomew v. New York Cent. R. C Beadleston v. Beadleston ..... Beardsley v. Selectmen of Bridgeport... Beason y. Kurz... Beckett, In re Will of. Belden v. State .... Belleville Savings Bank v. Boruman ... Belter v. Lyon.... Bentley v. Lamb. Best v. Flint.... Biddle v. Hestonville, In. & F. P. Ry. Co Bigelow Wire Works y. Sonel Binzel v. Grogan ........... Blackburne v Vigors...... Blair v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.. Blake v. Baldwin ...... Bomberger v. Union Mutual Aid Society .. Borough of Carlisle v. Brisbane.. Boston Rubber Co. v. Peerless Wringe Bowen v. Webber ............. Boyd v. Meigham... Brennan v. Merchants and Manufacturer's Bank Bridge v. City of Oshkosh....... Bristol v. Bristol... Bristol Manf'g. Co. v. Barnes... Bromley, Re..... Bronson v. Estate of Phelps...... Brown y, Mausur. Brown y. Mansus...... Brown v. Spaulding... Brown y Weaver ... Brock v. Dole.......... Brundage v. Village of Portchester... Bullard v. Boston and Maine Railroad Buttz v. Northern Pacific R, Co. Bunch v. Great Western Ry. Co Burchett v. Commonwealth.... Burns v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.. Burt v. De La Vergne.... Burton v Burton ......... 316 298 $16 Page. ... 373 Cogswell v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Ry. Co .. 471 . ....... . ....... 404 Collins v. South Boston R. Co ..... .......... 293 Cominissioners of Excise v. Merchant.. 395 Commissioners of State Reservation at Niagara, etc., In re... 195 Commonwealth v. Briant ..... .-. 440 517 Commonwealth v. Hall. 439 258 Commonwealth v. Kostenbauder.. 277 Commonwealth v. Richardson.. 18 Conselyea y, Blanchard.. 415 Converse y, Hobbs ..... 375 56 59 293 138 Dawson v. Buford. 479 178 Day v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. 117 17 Deimer v. Franz. 155 239 Dickinson v. State .... 138 Marston v. Marston.. 417 Dixon v. Allen.. 57 519 Donk v. Alexander ..... ..431 Driggs v. Phillips.. 415 317 Drovers Nat. Band of Union Stock Yards, 111., v. Anglo15 American Packing and Provision Co. . 106 ... 455 Dunlap v. Thoinas.. ... 58 507 Dupoyster v. Gagoni .. 237 Dwinelle v. Edey... ... .. 37 76 Eliot Five-cent Savings Bank v. Commercial Union Ass. Co. 118 ... 277 195 Ensign, In re .... 425 269 Equitable Co-operative Foundry Co. v. Hersee Evans v. Mason.... Everett v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. CO 77 Co......................... D . ........... Fifth Nat. Bank v. New York Elevated R. Co Fitzsimmons v. City of Brooklyn. Fletcher v. People........... Formwalt v. Hylton. French v. Creswell..... .... 31 Fuller v. Connelly... 198 • 337 | Fuller v. Lumbert.... 349 Gadsden v. Woodward Gage v. Parry . Gates v. Nellis...... Geismer v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern R. Co. 138 | Gibbons v. Farwell. 53 Gille v. Hunt .... ... 220 | Gould v. Eastern R. Co........ Cady v. Walker .... Camp v. Crocker ... Canning v. Farquhar Carbee v, Mason ... Carney v. Carney .... Carpenter v. Osborne. Cave v. Torre Chapin v, Freeland Chapin v. Wright.. Cheney v. Dunlap .... Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co v. Londergan Choctaw Nation v. United States ..... Christopher v. Christopher.. Churchill v. Bradley . Clark v. Sargeant ... Cleaver v. Bullock.. Clute v. Knies.... Coburn v. Middlesex Co Page. 116 272 Page. Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars of the State of California v. Farnham......... . .............. 279 Granger v. Parker ..... 218 Green Bay and Mississippi Canai Co 352 Griffin v. Long Island R. Co..... 137 Griswold v. New York and N. E. R. Co.... 36 21 Saith F. lns, and I or Marquett lcd Varor - Delaware & DUIT, Burbagh Sex York, ST. Els .... 13 Massey v. Mutual Relief Soc. of Rochester, N. Y. 328 369 95 233 Hackney v. Welch. 335 Haley y. Case.... 191 Hall v. Westcott.... 227 Hall v. Whitehall Water Power Co. 54 213 Harper v. Shoppell... 374 Harper v. Young .. 376 Hart v. Chicago & N. 417 Hastings v. Weber 200 Haynes v. Rudd...... Hecksher v. Trotter.. 279 Henning v. Raymond... 336 Hendricks v. Bd. of Co. Com’rs of Chautauqua Count 232 Hess v. Muir ... 280 Hewlett v. Elmer.... 393 Hewlett v. Western Un 260 Hickey v. Morrell...... 68 Highland v. Dresser ...... 200 Hinchliffe v. Shea... Hoar v. Merritt... 156 House v. Eisenlord. 73 Houson & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Carson. 219 Hoyt v. Ketcham ....... 298 Hutchinson v. Parker... Hutkoff v. Demorest.... 54 ly. 356 356 130 95 397 377 Nason v. West ets P Ikerd v. Beavers..... 496 325 119 131 457 394 374 155 451 198 454 Kalbfleisch v. Long Island R. Co. ... 259 415 Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. City of Philadelphia ...... Owen v. Weston.. 333 Page v. Hodge ..... Paige v. Warning.. Pandorf v. Hamilton..... 140 509 People v. Anderson.... 156 People v. Arensberg... People v. Chapman.... 125 People v. Clark..... 237 People v. Com'rs. of Fire 152 People v. Com. of Police. 440 People v. Cromwell ...... People v. Cruger.. People v. Druse ... People v. Gage People v. Gardner .... 372 ... 177, 195 People v. Loew. ... 53 375 People v. McCarthy. ... 236 57 People v. McClave.... People's Passenger Ry. Co. v. Lauderbach. -... 237 People v. Rome, Watertown, etc., R. Co..., 64 295 479 Perry v. Mount Hope Iron Co.. ... 116 298 Place v. Norwich & New York Transp. Co... 24 Plum y. Studebaker.... 190 Pope v. Porter....... 355 Potter v. Douglas County.. 234 Potter v. Gronbeck.. 415 Powers v. Canada ..... Priest v. White .. 239 Providence Coad Co. v. Providence, etc., k. So.. 480 Pullen v. Pullen .... Pynchon v. Day.... M'Fadden v. Ross... D a te ........................... 118 74 179 278 157 334 300 227 Raub v. Smith .. 119 454 Teal v. Fissel..... 397 196 307 ... 417 · 337 317 267 515 99 echanics’ Ins. Co. v. Bra 356 196 18 418 394 Saginaw Gas-light Co. v. City of Saginaw... 172 192 378 Van Aernam v. Blustein 117 157 Vanderzee v. Haswell .......... 356 16 178 Van Horn v. Litchfield..... 457 Van Poucks v. Netherland St. Vincent De Pauls 455 119 Vicksburg and M. R. Co, V. Putnam. 477 415 Vicksburgh & M. R. Co. v. O'Brien .. 496 455 Vogel v. State.. 377 497 199 119 Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Ry. Co. v. People of the State 156 of Illinois .... .........406, 427 453 Wagner v. State ... .... 197 Wait v. Oxford...... 452 Wallace v. Wallace.... 454 277 Warren Glass Works Co. v. Keystone Coal Co. 220 Wasson v. First Nat. Bank.... 311 Watt's Appeal ... 155 Weatherhead v. Stoddard.. 157 Wheeler v, Lawson...... 373 230 White y. Western Assur. 455 374 Whitney v. Butler .... 444 Wilcox v. St. Paul and N. P. Ry. Co. Wilds v. St. Louis, A. and T. H. R. Co... 54 Willett v. Rich.. 424 Williams v. Flood. 494 Wilierding v. McKesson 476 Wilson, Matter of Will or.. Winchell v. Coney....... 210 Winchester v, Capron.... Wing v. Ansonia Clock Co. 116 454 Wistar v. City of Philadelphi 139 454 Wiswell y. Wiswell...... .. 75 Witherell v. Stewart .. .. 373 56, 279 Wood v. State .... 334 333 Wright v. Boston and Albany R. Co....... 200 Young v. Collett. ... 455 238 | Zimmerman v. Township of Conemaugh........ ... 119 THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL: A WEEKLY RECORD F THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, JULY 3, 1886. tracts from it. They sum up the chief causes in the following words: Complex procedure, inadequate judiciary, procrastination, retrial, unreasonable appeals, uncertain law. The latter they propose to remedy by codification, which, curiously enough, met with strenuous opposition among the members CURRENT TOPICS. of the association, so much so that its discussion was postponed to the present year." We fear that JUDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON, of St. Louis, the Times people are to be ranked among the "code J as secretary of a committee of the American Bar | fellows." The New York City Bar Association Association, has addressed a circular to the members, ought to appoint and send a committee over to corasking their opinion on the following subjects: Codi- | rect them. fication; trial by jury; relief of appellate courts; delays and uncertainties in administration of criminal In an article of the last number of the American law; legal education; the selection of judges; Law Review entitled “Hints about Trials,” Judge champertous engagements by attorneys. Many Brown of Detroit laments the prolixity of jury trials specific questions are asked under each head. in this country and contrasts it with the rapidity of Among the most interesting is the question whether them in England. He says very truly that "a case the State ought not to have the right to put the that ought to be finished in a day or two is dragged prisoner on the witness stand and interrogate him, on for a week.” Hours are wasted in taking testibut without the power of compelling answers; | mony upon immaterial points, or in the unnecessary whether the prosecuting attorney ought not to be multiplication of witnesses to the same fact. Days allowed to comment on the prisoner's failure to tes are consumed in examining plaintiff's witnesses tify where he has the right; whether judges should only to find that he has made no case - a fact be elected or appointed; for what term; and whether which ought to have been discovered when he made they should be re-eligible; whether the "contin- | his opening to the jury. And finally, if the trial be gent fee business" is injurious to justice, and closely contested, the chances are that the jury will whether the defendant should be allowed to show | disagree, or the verdict be set aside because an insuch an agreement if it exists. This circular is an advertent question was asked, or a word was misticipatory of a report to the association at the next spelled in the indictment. The consequence of all meeting this is that the judicial force of the country is out of all proportion to the amount of work done, and the The London Lar Times takes notice of the report cost to the public for jury fees and other court exof the eighth annual meeting of the American Bar penses is something enormous." He admits that Association; after stating that one of the professed the English celerity is somewhat offset by the diffiobjects of the association is to "encourage cordial culty of getting a case at issue there. He makes intercourse among the members of the American several suggestions for improvement. First, that Bar," it observes: “It is with the latter, among after the plaintiff has opened, the defendant should other objects, we presume, that a collation,' fig- | be required to state his case, so as to see if the ures in the programme of the meeting.” It com cause cannot be disposed of as a question of law. mends the style of the discussions, and particularly | Second, that cumulative testimony should be exof Mr. Biddle's paper on the Proper mode of Trial, cluded. Third, that counsel should be required to It also observes: "Facile princeps, however, is the re stand in examining witnesses. Fourth, that questions port of the special committee upon the delay of judi- of admission of testimony should not be discussed cial administration, bearing the honored names of | much. Fifth, that counsel should be limited in David Dudley Field and John F. Dillon. It is in every time for argument. Eighth, that personalties should way excellent, but space forbids any copious ex- be prohibited. Ninth, that requests to charge VOL. 34 - No. 1. |