existence a hundred years ago, when John Marshall democrats voted with the eleven republicans for received his appointment as chief justice, we pro- acquittal. The prosecution lacked seven votes, as it test against the proposed amendment to its con- required two-thirds to convict. Judge Douglas is a stitution as a step backward, and one fraught with son of Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln's political rival, danger. and he was President Grant's private secretary from 1869 to 1873. He received telegrams of congratulation from all parts of the country. The first article of impeachment, which was the vital one, charged the judges with appropriating money out of the State treasury by issuing a writ of mandamus in favor of a claimant for office in violation of the Constitution. The vote on the second, third and fourth articles was twenty-four in favor of and twenty-six against. On the fifth article, as to the question of intent, the vote was sixteen for impeach

When it is considered that the bar of all other cities but Philadelphia has a full complement of women lawyers, the serious problem confronting us at the beginning of the twentieth century is whether or not we shall determine to keep abreast with the rest of the world in the rapid onward march of civilization instead of being relegated to the tail end of the procession.

The Item urges the Law Academy to awaken from this seeming stupor, to shake off its spell of contracted reason and change its constitutionsment and thirty-four against. After the vote on the if any parting at all shall be made from its ancient moorings to read that neither sex nor color shall prejudice the applicant who knocks at its door for admission.— Philadelphia Item.

first article the managers from the house sought to withdraw the other articles, but the senate objected. The judges were suspended by the Constitution when the trial began and resumed their office at its close.

While the announcement of his appointment of three judges of Common Pleas No. 5, by Governor Stone, has relieved the public suspense and set at rest al curiosity as to the personnel of the new court, we have no hesitation in saying that the bar has suffered a serious loss.

Truth is that by the elevation of J. Willis Martin, Colonel Robert Ralston and Maxwell Stevenson to the judiciary, the governor has shown exceptionally good judgment and wisdom. Both the bar and the public are unanimous in approval of the appointments, and that these gentlemen will give weight, honor and dignity to the bench no one familiar with their past careers will presume to question.

Mr. Choate presided at a recent lecture delivered by Mr. A. Birrell in London on the English literature of the past century. During the course of his remarks the author of obiter dicta said that a new edition of a good author resembled a new road through an old country it opened up many new points of interest. Mr. Birrell also remarked that there were very few books that one could not easily lay down when the dinner gong sounded or when the evening paper was brought in. For the future Mr. Birrell quoted Browning: "Let us greet the unseen with a cheer." In proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Birrell, Mr. Choate expressed the following ideas on universal copyright. He said: The person who wrote Ecclesiastes declared that of the making of books there was no end. If that were true some 2,000 years before the invention of printing, what would the writer say to-day if he could see us flooded with books of all languages from all countries. The treasures of literature were the common property of all who could read or speak the English language. Was it an idle dream, or might it possibly be realized in the future — in the millennium of English literature — that authors should really benefit by their works? Might it not be possible before the end of the new century that an English or American book could go anywhere The Hardwicke Society has succeeded, it is after being properly copyrighted in London, Wash-announced, in persuading Maitre Labori, who esington, Montreal or Melbourne, and that the tablished a European reputation by his defense of author's rights could be properly protected? That, Dreyfus, to be the guest of the evening at their next indeed, it should be recognized the same as an dinner, in the early days of June. English sovereign or an American gold eagle, both of which were current at their face value throughout

the world?

The North Carolina senate, sitting as a High Court of Impeachment, has acquitted Chief Justice D. M. Furches and Judge R. M. Douglas, who were charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. Both judges were acquitted on all the five articles of impeachment preferred by the house of representatives. The judges are republicans, and twelve

The Item congratulates them upon the high honor conferred upon them, and yet there is a touch of pathos about it all. We cannot forget that they will be lost to their old associations; the bar will have lost three of its most honored, most able and most useful members.- Philadelphia Item.

English Notes.

Court of the United States, in which the lady A question has been decided by the Supreme lawyers of America must have taken rather more than a professional interest. It involved nothing less than the legal status of the trailing skirt. A lady, in alighting from a street car, caught her dress in some appliance on the platform, and was dragged along the road. The owners of the car resisted her claim for damages, on the ground that she was guilty of contributory negligence in wear

ing so long a skirt. Every devotee of fashion will be prepared (says the Globe) to hail the judges who solved this important problem as Daniels come to judgment; they decided that a woman whose skirt trails on the ground is not guilty of negligence. A different decision would have been surprising. Does not justice herself wear a flowing robe?

Even the Cause List — that most prosaic of documents, says the Globe - has occasionally a little humor of its own. Among the curious combinations of names in the slowly-diminishing list of actions for the present term are Walker v. London, Hand v. Blow, and Law v. Law. Even more curious were two cases which appeared consecutively in the chamber list last Tuesday, viz., Welsbach Co. v. Tripe; Same v. Onions.

It is reported that the Bennett case has been the costliest murder trial of modern times, mainly because of the great length of time occupied in collecting evidence, the change of venue from Norwich to London, and the high position of the legal authorities engaged, says the Law Times. It will cost, from first to last, over £2,000 to bring the murderer to the scaffold. The Milsom and Fowler case was the most expensive of recent trials until this one; and there too it was the detective work of tracking down the criminals from a slight clue and over a considerable time that augmented the cost beyond the average.

A centenarian barrister, probably the oldest lawyer in the world, has, says the Daily Telegraph, passed away at Brighton in the person of Mr. James Macauley. His name is, of course, unknown to the present generation who frequent the courts, but it still remains in the official law list. From this it appears that he was called to the bar at Gray's-inn as far back as June, 1835. The late Mr. Woodhouse, who died at Albury only a few weeks ago, was younger than Mr. Macauley, but was an older barrister, having been called at the Inner Temple six years before him, that is to say, in 1829. Thus, the two oldest members of the bar in England have died

within two months' time.

devoted himself exclusively to the service of the country. Two years later, in 1784, Mr. Pitt was resolved, had he been defeated at the general election of that year or driven from the position of prime minister, to resume his practice at the outer bar as a member of the western circuit; while it is an open secret that the present speaker of the house of commons, who was first elected to the chair in

April, 1895, by a narrow majority on party lines, had arranged, in the event of his not being reelected to the speakership by the house of commons which was returned at the general election of 1895, to resume his career as a practicing barrister.- Law Times.

Applause in court would appear to be growing more frequent, says the Law Journal (London). A verdict of not guilty," at the Leeds Assizes, last Monday, was received with "loud and prolonged applause." Such unseemly demonstrations are a

danger to the administration of justice, since they may affect the manner in which juries discharge their duties; but the danger is not likely to be removed while judges content themselves with mere reprimands and threats of punishment. One of the persons who took part in the demonstration at Leeds was brought before Mr. Justice Kennedy, who declined, however, to punish him on the curious ground that he was not the only offender. A wide distinction ought, no doubt, to be drawn between those who are deliberately guilty of contempt of court and those who, without desiring to cast any disrespect upon the court, merely allow their feelings to get the better of their judgment; but it is necessary that demonstrative persons should be taught that a court of justice is not a place where "loud and prolonged applause" can be tolerated.

The letter of a correspondent in the Times of the eleventh instant, suggesting that some £70,000.000 are lying idle in the Court of Chancery unclaimed

is, we are informed, founded on a misapprehension of the facts. The funds in the chancery and other divisions of the High Court are stated in the last parliamentary return (No. 358 of 1900) by the assistant paymaster-general for the Supreme Court One incident in the career of Mr. Harrison, the to be about £56,000,000. The great majority of ex-president of the United States, who died on the these funds are, however, in no sense lying idle or thirteenth instant, is of special interest to lawyers. unclaimed, but are the property of the suitors in the When, in 1892, Mr. Harrison was defeated in the courts, and are held for them by the government contest for a second term of the presidency, he re- under the orders of the court. Their ultimate desturned to his practice at the bar. In these countries tination, except as regards the "dormant" funds a return to the bar has been contemplated by men referred to below, is perfectly well known, and the who have filled great positions in public life. In interest on them is meanwhile regularly paid 1782, Mr. Grattan, through whose exertions the to the persons entitled. A list of "dormant independence of the Irish parliament was secured funds" in chancery that is, of funds upby the modifications of Poynings' law, known as the wards of fifty pounds in amount which have Irish constitution of 1782, refused all offers of not been dealt with for fifteen years and upoffice and was prepared to resume his profession as wards is published triennially in the London a barrister. Acting, however, on the advice of Gazette. Their amount was stated by the solicitorfriends and the urgent wish of the parliament, he general, in reply to a question in the house of agreed to accept £50,000, and from that time he commons on the 29th of December, 1893, to be a

little over £1,160,000, and it is probably about the same at the present time. He also informed the house that about one-third of these funds do not exceed £100, and that the proportion which exceeded £1,000 was very small. In many of these cases, too, it is understood that the persons ultimately entitled to receive the money are known, so that it is extremely unlikely that the taxpayers will receive any benefit from this source.- Times.

Mr. Montague Crackanthorpe, K. C., has contributed to the Pilot some particulars of a remarkable murder case in France, says the Law Journal. A youth murdered his father at Diesle in order to obtain his property. The case bristled, Mr. Crackanthorpe says, with psychological problems. "What was the precise mental condition of the prisoner? What were his relations to his father, to his mother, to his mistress, to his artist companions? If not wholly irresponsible, might he not be half irresponsible, and were there not circumstances which might commute the death penalty to forced labor for life, or for years?" One of the

most wonderful features of a remarkable trial was

the evidence given by the medical experts who had had the prisoner under observation during his long detention before trial. The director of the lunatic asylum at St. Ylie spoke in phrases which might have been dictated by Moliere for the Bourgeois Gentilhomme. "The prisoner had hyposthenia and hypersthenia; he had symptoms of anisthenia of the throat; his antiperistaltic movements left much to be desired. Over his eye- - the mirror of the brain his left eye there was a wen. This indicated abnormality, so did the defectiveness of his vision. He was," concluded this learned physician, "a wholly irresponsible being." For four days the evidence and arguments as to the mental condition of the accused lasted, and the prisoner was found guilty; but a diminution of the penalty was claimed, and twenty years of forced labor was the sentence. The jury, however, before parting, signed a petition in favor of a reduction of this punishment.

During the administration of President Benjamin Harrison, Senator Clark, of Wyoming, then a practicing lawyer in the territory, as it was in those days, was appointed a judge of the territorial court. He was not certain about accepting the position, and he went over to have a talk with Judge Corn, the Democratic incumbent. "Have you

"Hello, Clark," said the judge. come over to be sworn in?”

No," said Clark, "I have not yet made up my mind to take the place."

"Oh, take it by all manner of means," said Judge Corn. "It is a pleasant job and I think you will like it."

The events of this week have once more directed public attention to the absolute privilege, so far as the law of libel is concerned, enjoyed by politicians in regard to anything they may say in parliament, says the Law Journal. The bill of rights (1 Will. & Mary, St. 2, c. 2) provides that "the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament." Accordingly, no action lies against a member of either house for any words spoken in the house (Dillon v. Balfour [1887], 20 L. R. Ir. 600). No indictment can be founded on an alleged conspiracy by members of either house to make speeches defamatory of the plaintiff (Ex parte Watson, L. R. [1869], 4. Q. B. 573). Moreover, parliament creates certain rights of sanctuary in favor of persons who are not members. A petition to either house or to a committee' qualify you."- Exchange.

"But," said Clark, "I have a good many private matters to attend to and I cannot accept for some time yet anyway. If I conclude to take the place I will let you know."

"All right," said Judge Corn, come over and I will swear you in, but," he added, with a laugh, while I can swear you in, all creation cannot

ditions: First, where the contract is, terminated by the employer, which termination may be made immediately. Second, where it is terminated by the physician, which can only be done after due notice and an ample opportunity afforded to secure the presence of other medical attendance. * ** He can never be justified in abandoning the case as did this defendant, and the circumstances show a negligence in its character well-nigh to brutality.

This characterization of the defendant's action does not seem to us at all too severe, nor does the verdict appear to be excessive, when all the circumstances are considered. However annoying and exasperating the patient's conduct may have been to him, he should have remembered not only her irresponsibility under the distracting circumstances of childbirth, but his own personal and professional responsibility. Happily, there are few physicians or surgeons who would so far forget their sacred duties under like conditions, but for these the verdict in this case cannot fail to serve as a strong deterrent.

of the case, for which we are indebted to the San Francisco Examiner, appear to be that Dr. P. H. Flood, something over a year ago, An adjudication upon the subject of the was called to attend Mrs. Margaret A. Lath-rights of a person who boards an open trolley rope in childbirth. An operation was deemed car, pays his fare and rides on the side-step, necessary by him, but the woman's screams for the reason that there is no room for him interfered with the application of the neces- either inside the car or on the platform, was sary instruments, and her conduct became so rendered recently by the Supreme Court of abstreperous, through nervous excitement, Pennsylvania, in the case of Bumbear v. that he threatened to leave her if she did not United Traction Company. It appeared in desist. Later on, the woman's conduct being evidence that the car, being completely full, no less refractory, he carried out his threat the plaintiff had stood, as usual, on the sideand left the room and the house, although the step, with a number of other passengers; that husband followed him to the door, begging the conductor took his fare and made no him not to go. Another surgeon was at once objection to his remaining there. At a place summoned, but it was more than an hour where the street described a sharp curve, the before he arrived, the patient meanwhile tracks were so near one side of the street as undergoing great agony. The second surgeon barely to leave room for a wagon between the completed the operation, and saved the tracks and a hotel, and in this narrow space mother's life at the expense of that of the ice wagons were generally standing in the child. Mr. and Mrs. Lathrop sued Dr. Flood morning. On this particular morning an ice in the Superior Court and obtained a verdict wagon was so near the tracks as to project for $2,000. Dr. Flood appealed the case to over the side-step of the car. It also appeared the Supreme Court, which tribunal affirmed that the motorman, who could have seen the the lower court's action, saying, in part: wagon a block distant, was signaled by the It is undoubtedly the law that a physician may driver of the ice wagon to stop, but did not elect whether or not he will give his services to a do so. The result was that the hub of the case; but having accepted his employment and enwheel struck the plaintiff and injured him. tered upon the discharge of his duties, he is bound to devote to the patient his best skill and attention The court held the rule to be that, although and to abandon the case only under one of two con- the side-step is not a proper and safe place for

VOL. 63.- No. 6.

a passenger to stand, when, as in this case, that he was excluded from any further comthe passenger, by invitation of the conductor pensation. The learned judge (Bucknill) held, or with his knowledge and assent, and from however, that it was a question of fact to be necessity because of the want of sitting or decided by a jury whether the plaintiff had standing room inside the car, rides on the entered into a contract to accept the £190 in side-step, he is entitled to the same degree of full satisfaction of all damages sustained, or diligence to protect him from dangers which to be sustained, by him, from the injury, or are known and may be readily guarded whether he merely took the money as comagainst, as other passengers. Hence, the court left the question of the motorman's negligence to the jury.

pensation for the injuries which had been brought to his knowledge, and would have refused to take it if he had thought it would prevent him from obtaining anything for an injury which had remained undisclosed and declared itself afterward. In commenting upon this decision, the Solicitors' Journal says:

The decision of the learned judge appears to be based upon the familar rule that a receipt is an admission only, and not a contract, and that the party signing the receipt is at liberty to explain or contradict anything which is stated in it. One or two cases were cited in the argument; but the whole subject was most carefully examined and explained, as far back as 1871, by Mellish, L. J., in Lee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. (L. R., 6 Ch. App. 527). A case like that of the plaintiff will always excite sympathy, and a railway company is at a disadvantage where it is submitted to a jury. But it must be remembered that the payment of money to the plaintiff was intended to secure the company from an action for damages, and that if he had recovered any damages for injuries to his person, he could not have maintained a further action for fresh bodily injuries caused by the same act of negligence merely because they had been discovered or developed subsequently. If a simple memorandum of agreement, stating that the company had agreed to pay a person injured by accident a certain sum, and that he agreed to accept it in full satisfaction of all damages sustained, or to be sustained by him were to be tendered to that person, he would probably sign it without any mental reservation. And in such a case, always assuming that there was no evidence of fraud the agreement would be a bar to further proceedings.

The Solicitors' Journal (London), calls attention in a recent issue to a case (Ellen v. The Great Northern Railway Co.), in which this very interesting question was involved: In what circumstances can a wrongdoer be made to pay damages twice for the same wrongful act? The plaintiff, a postal sorter, having been injured by a collision on the defendant's railway, was attended by a physician for concussion of the brain and shock to the system, and was also examined by a doctor on behalf of the railroad company. Under the plaintiff's instructions, at a later date, his solicitor accepted £190 from the company and signed the following receipt: "Received of the Great Northern Railway Company, the sum of £190, in full satisfaction and discharge of all claims, legal and medical charges included, in respect to injuries sustained by Mr. T. E. J. Ellen, near Babworth crossing, on the 16th of March, 1899." Soon after receiving the money, and returning to his work, the plaintiff's eyesight began to fail, so that in February, 1900, he was dismissed from his employment, and afterward became totally blind. Thereupon he commenced the present action against the company to recover compensation in addition to the amount which he had already received, alleging that his blindness was due to the injuries which he had A case recently decided by the United sustained by the collision. It was admitted States Circuit Court, sitting at New Orleans, that neither the plaintiff nor his physician involved the important question of sales by knew, or had reasonable grounds for suppos- neutrals to belligerents. It turned on the ing, when he received the money from the proper interpretation of Article VI of the company, that his eyesight had been affected treaty of Washington, providing for the subby the injuries sustained. The contention of mission of the Alabama claims to arbitration. the company was that the acceptance of the The article declares, in effect, that a neutral money by the plaintiff amounted in law to a government is bound to not to permit either satisfaction of the whole cause of action, and belligerent to make use of its ports or waters