Gardner v. First National Bank of DeQueen Gardner v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (U. Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Gearing V. Berkson, et al., (Massachusetts) Gordon V. McLearn (Arkansas) Damages- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co. (U. S. C. C A.) Monopoly-Viol- ation of Notice as to Resale of Manufac- Grocer & Merchants Bureau of Nashville, Plain- tiff in Error v. Dr. W. E. Gray, Defendant in Error (Tennessee) Attorney and Client-- What is Law Business, ann. case, 13. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. The Wolf Bros. & Co. (U. S. S. C.) The Rule of Recovery Kuryer Pub. Co. v. Messmer (Wisconsin S. C.) Religious Association--Damage to Third Landon v. Halcomb (Texas) Bills and Notes- Lindstrom v. Mutual S. S. Co. (Minnesota S. C.) Workmen's Compensation Act as Applicable Litchfield Shuttle Co. v. Cumberland Nat. Bank (Tennesse S. C.) Banks and Banking-Gen- McKegney v. Illinois Surety Co. (New York S. C.) Principal and Surety-Rule Strictissimi Juris Not Applicable to Corporate Surety, McPherson v. Buick (New York) Sales--Ex- tension of Rule as to Poisons, Explosives, Maass v. Wardman (District of Columbia S. C.) Appeal and Error--Suggestion by a Court as and Its Settlement, R. D. 116. Maddocks V. Keene (Maine) Seal-Necessity of R. D. 278. Melkusch V. Victor American Fuel Co. (New Michigan State Bank of Eaton Rapids v. Kern, Moyse Real Estate Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Nelson v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa S. C.) Commerce-Federal Employers' Liability Act Superseding Remedy Under State Law, New York Central & H. R. Co. v. Gray (U. S. S. C.) Common Carriers-Recovery of Consid- eration Where Contract is Forbidden En- New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk R. Co. v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland (U. S S. C.) Initial Carriers Bound by Carmack Amendment to Use Reasonable Noah v. Bank for Savings in the City of New Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Meese (U. S. S. CO Workmen's Compensation Act-- State Con- struction Enforced, R. D. 225. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wall (U. S. S. C.) Commerce-Notice of Loss to Initial or Con- People v. Hudson Valley Const. Co. (New York C. A.) Intent--Evidence of Other Offenses Than That Being Tried, R. D. 224. Perkins v. United States (U. S. C. C. A.) Evi- State V. Carta (Connecticut) Evidence-With- State v. Cotton (South Dakota S. C.) Criminal State v. Davis (West Virginia S. C.) Intoxicating State v. McLaughlin (Louisiana S. C.) Criminal Law-Statement by Victim of Homicide as State v. McCullagh (Kansas) Constitutional Straus v. Notaseme (U. S. S. C.) Trade-Marks- Profits in Unfair Competition, R. D. 29. Stone v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York (Tennessee S. C.) Insurance-Accident, ann. Stout v. United States (U. S. C. C. A.) Criminal Law-Presumption Against Accused for Failure to Submit Evidence Other Than His Tanner, Attorney-General, v. Little, et al. (U. S. S. C.) Validity of License Tax on the Use Tasker v. Avey (Maine S. C.) Highways---Dog Causing Injury to Automobile, R. D. 332. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rigsby (U. S. S C.) Intrastate Employes Under Protection of Federal Safety Appliance Acts, Ed. 385. Turner, et al., v. Vann, et al. (North Carolina) Vendor and Purchaser-Sale in Gross, ann. United States v. Barrow (U. S. S. C.) False Per- Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States T S. C. C. A.) Exercise of Right of Eminent Watson v. Mississippi River Power Co. (Iowa S. C.) Reform of Court Procedure Awaits Wells v. Navigation Co. (New York) Unneces- Western Union Tel. Co. v. Sharp (Arkansas S Wheat v. Hill (U. S. C. C. A.) Wills-Computa Winfield v. Erie R. Co. (New Jersey) Workmen's Winfield v. New York, C. & H. R. Co. (New York) Recovery Under Workmen's Compensation Act for Injury Suffered in Interstate Com- merce Where Employer was Free from Negligence, Ed. 43. Wolf v. Harris (Missouri S. C.) Injunction--Li- Yaozo & M. V. R. Co. v. Walls (Mississippi S. C.) Carrier of Passengers-Passenger on Train not Stopping at Destination on Ticket Youngerman v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. Central Law Journal. ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 7, 1916. LORD READING CALLED TO TASK FOR HIS AMERICAN INTERVIEW ON "JUSTICE." A judge who stoops to flatter public misconceptions of the judicial administration of the law deserves the rebuke con tained in the sharp comments which the English law journals have made with reference to some after-dinner remarks of Lord Reading while on his recent visit to this country. Lord Reading is quoted as saying that "the idea that it is the duty of the law courts to dispense law, is becoming obsolete. It is recognized that the true duty of the courts is to dispense justice." Law Notes (London) in its December, 1915, number, says: "If his Lordship is correctly reported, then the observation of the average blunt old lawyer will be short and simple. 'Rot!' The tongue of the most careful man runs away with him in an afterbanquet speech, and if his Lordship did make any such remark he now bitterly repents it. What a nonsensical idea laymen have on this point. 'Well, sir, it may be law, but it ain't justice.' In our experience, we have noticed the remark is generally made by a litigant who has just lost his case. The law of the land is made up of common law and statute law. If this law does not produce what the community regard as justice, then let Parliament amend the law. But in the name of common sense, don't let justice depend on the length and breadth of each judge's foot, or rather, brain." Law and justice are not interchangeable terms. The one is objective; the other subjective. Law, in the practical use of that term, is society's conception of justice, concretely expressed in statute and decision. Abstract justice is an ever advancing but never completely attainable ideal toward which society keeps steadily striving. This ideal is realized in some measure from time to time by legislation changing or modifying rules of law. It must be borne in mind, however, that the popular assembly of the people is alone authorized to make the changes which the people regard as necessary to bring practical legal rules and abstract principles of justice into closer working relationship, and a judge is justified neither in lagging behind nor in going ahead of the community's conception of justice as expressed in the action. of the legislature. A. H. R. FALSE PERSONATION IN CLAIMING TO BE A FEDERAL OFFICER OF A NONEXISTING OFFICE. The U. S. Supreme Court reverses ruling by District Court reported in 221 Fed. 140, that false personation of an officer or employe of the United States under the Federal Statute, "must be personation of some particular person or class of persons, since there cannot be a false personation of a suppositious individual who never existed or whose class never existed." United States v. Barrow, 36 Sup. Ct. 19. The Supreme Court holds to a broader meaning of the federal statute, saying that: "To 'falsely assume or pretend to be an officer or employe acting under the authority of the United States' *** is the thing prohibited. One who falsely assumes to pretend to hold office that has a de jure existence is admittedly within its meaning. That is, where the assumption or pretense is false in part; but contains a modicum of truth the statute is violated. Why should it be deemed less an offense where the assumption or pretense is entirely false, as where the very office or employment to which the accused pretends title has no legal or actual existence?" The pretense in this case was that defendant falsely pretended to be an employe of the United States to sell the "Messages upon. Mr. Justice Whitney, speaking for a It is then said: "Accepting this criterion good will for the government and its of The genius of our government lies par- But is it not hard, indeed, to see how It avails little to criticise a ruling, even Verily do we find the United States, This decision does not greatly help to keep- federal and state power, where regulation NOTES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS CARRYING The Supreme Court said: "It (the company) It is stated that were the company to main- All of this proceeds upon the idea, that a ters, so far at least as the latter were concern- MONOPOLY-VIOLATION OF NOTICE AS The first of these cases held that this could The difference in decision between these Lacombe, C. J., in speaking for a unanimous This opinion is about as inconclusive as that |