for the purpose of correcting any error which may have escaped his notice in examining the original proof. Finally the plates are cast and the pages appear in their last form. Even then keen scrutiny is required and errors are sometimes detected which necessitate changes in the plates. The labor is not all done; the index and the tables are yet to be prepared. Of course, it is understood that while the printed volumes become the law, the original opinions are all preserved.

As the opinions are sent in, visitors appear. The leading members of the bar rarely honor the office with their presence. Less eminent advocates are often in evidence. Not infrequently the question would be asked in my day, "Have any rescripts come down?" My answer generally was, "You mean opinions, not rescripts," the difference not being definitely fixed in the mind of the average lawyer. Sometimes the inquiry would be, "Has that opinion come down yet?" as if the case were the only one that needed attention. It was amusing to listen to an occasional character, who, rescript in hand, would rush into the office to see the opinion in the first case he had "taken up" for a dozen years, or perhaps, the first case he had ever "taken up" in his life. He would read the adverse judgment with a weary expression and lay it down with the gratuitous remark that he regretted that the Massachusetts Supreme Bench had so deteriorated.

During the eight years and a half of the writer's incumbency many important cases were decided. The judgment in Hancock National Bank v. Ellis, 164 Mass. 414, as to the liability of the stockholder of a corporation organized in another State and the subsequent confirmations and enlargements created a profound impression. "I don't know what to make of it," said a well-known lawyer. "I have always advised my clients just exactly opposite." In another case, Andrews v. Andrews, 176 Mass. 92, as to the validity of a divorce obtained in

another State, there was an equal interest. My assistant, who preceded me in the office by five years, was wont to say that during her entire employment these two cases attracted by all means the most attention and were called for the most frequently.

A very serviceable practice-with which the Reporter's office has some slight connection is that of the Social Law Library in gathering together in ponderous books the original papers of all the cases. This began with the 97th volume and has been continued with a success that no one will question. Not only have the lawyers an accessible repository of forms and established methods of procedure, but the judges are supplied with an easy source of verification and a means of supplementing the deficiencies of the Reporter, as is evidenced occasionally by the statement, "An examination of the original papers reveals the fact, etc."

Though much may be said as to the most advisable method of reporting, I shall say but little. Conscious of my own deficiencies and cherishing a grateful remembrance of the forbearance of the bar, I have only to say that it is often difficult to keep the happy mean between diffuseness and conciseness, nor is it always easy to crystallize the points adjudicated in brief and expressive head-notes. The writer has long been of opinion that the judges should state all the facts in the opinions and should write all the head-notes, thus reducing the duties of the Reporter to those of a clerical nature. But others think differently, for example, a writer in 27 American Law Reporter, 86, who declares, "It may be gravely doubted whether the practice of requiring judges to make head-notes of their own opinions results in securing as good a syllabus as could be drawn by a competent Reporter. The head-notes of the decisions of some of the former judges of the Supreme Court of the United States who were in the habit of making their own head-notes were notoriously bad. They made an abstract of

all the reasoning, and the point decided was obscured and lost." In 5 Southern Law Review, 77, may be found a carefully prepared statement on the elements of successful re

porting. The author offers fifteen suggestions, the eighth of which is as follows: "The head-notes should not be a mud-scow of recitals or a disembodied spirit, but should contain a clear, terse statement of the precise points decided, and should always be prepared by the judge who writes the opinion, because he knows better than any one else what was intended to be decided."

Of the judges a word or two more may be said in parting. Association with them, especially on the circuit, was a great treat. As there was little to distract and more or less opportunity for social amenities, they dwelt in their few leisure moments on reminiscences fruitful of anecdote and incident,

showed kindly interest in the current conditions of local bars and indulged in pleasantries that elicited the reward of a smile or a laugh. And yet one cannot but deplore the retention of a law which sends the justices of the Court on an annual mission only to deal as a rule with meagre dockets and to lose much valuable time. It is urged that the people desire and have a right to see their judges at least once a year. I do not question the right; I do question the desire. The people take no interest in either judge or points of law, and at all law sessions the spectators' seats are empty or nearly so. This foolish and elsewhere generally obsolete system is not creditable to Massachusetts. session for the whole State at Boston, each county to have the privilege of a special assignment, is all that is required.

One

A

GOOD-LOOKING young matron from the rural district was on the stand for the defendant in a criminal case. It was her first experience of the sort, but she got along smoothly during the direct examination. When the State's Attorney took her in hand, however, the trouble started instantly. The following is a transcription from the official record at this point:

Prosecuting Attorney: "Now, madam, I wish you would relate all that occurred the evening of this difficulty."

Witness: "Again? Why, I told it once." Defendant's attorney: "Tell him again, Mrs.."

P. A. (sarcastically): "Who's examining this witness, I'd like to know? If you ain't through"

Witness: "When you're all talking at the

same time I don't see how you expect a body to think-___"

P. A. (excitedly): "Wait a minute! Your thoughts are not evidence. We insist that the witness confine her testimony to facts." By the Court: "Answer his question, madam."

Witness: "What was his question?" By the Court: "Repeat the question." P. A.: "I have forgotten what it was. Will the stenographer please read it?"

Stenographer: "Now, madam, I wish you would relate all that occurred the evening of this difficulty."

By the Court: "Now answer that." Witness: "Why, certainly, I have no objec tions, but I supposed he heard me the first time. Well, to begin with, when Johnnie came home that night he put his horse in

the barn, and came up to the house and said

P. A.: "Hold on! Hold on! Was the defendant there?"

Witness (sweetly): "What's the defendant?"

P. A.: "The man we're trying here.' Witness: "He was in jail, and as I was saying, Johnnie says, 'Ma,'-"

P. A. (ferociously): "I object. She's going to relate a conversation when the detendant was not present.”

Defendant's Attorney: "She merely wants to state a fact."

By the Court: "But she must not give a conversation during the defendant's absence. Just tell what occurred, without repeating any conversation."

Witness: "Well, Johnnie came home and put his horse in the barn

P. A.: "You said that before."

D. A.: "I object to his interrupting the witness."

By the Court: "Yes; he ought not to interrupt her. Go on, madam, from the time Johnnie got his horse in the barn."

Witness: "Well, after Johnnie put his horse in the barn he came to the house and says, 'Ma, I'm'—”

P. A.: "There it goes again, your Honor,

after she's been expressly cautioned by the Court not to tell what Johnnie said."

D. A.: "I object to his lecturing the witness. If he'd let her alone she'd tell the story all right. We're offering this to show the time Johnnie got home, and his condition. after witnessing the difficulty, as it may tend to corroborate his statement."

By the Court: "That would be all right, but any conversation with her son there would be irrelevant. Leave out the talk and go on, madam."

Witness: "No, I'm through. You people seem to know so much more about what I was going to tell than I do that I'm ashamed to tell you what little I know."

At the noon recess the Court went to the witness and said: "Madam, would you mind telling me for my own interest, and not as a matter for the jury, what Johnnie said, because there are some curious features in this case I might better be able to deal with in the instructions if I knew more about it."

"Why, no!" said the lady. "That's what I was trying to tell. When he came back from the barn, he said: 'Ma, I'm nearly starved to death.' That's all."

His Honor thanked her and turned away to hide a smile.

peace, but as she always commenced playing and singing when he began to read, he left her only one thousand pounds. One other case of this kind is worthy of note. A husband left his wife twelve thousand pounds, to be increased to twenty-four thousand pounds provided she wore a widow's cap after his death. She accepted the larger amount, wore the cap for six months, and then ceased to wear it. A lawsuit followed; but the court held that the testator should have inserted the word "always," and gave judgment for the widow, who, the following day, re-entered the state of matrimony. Thus the husband's plan for preventing his widow marrying a second time failed.

The malevolence of some men is manifested in their death as well as during their lifetime. It is difficult to imagine anything much more cruel than a father who left his daughter thirty thousand pounds upon the following conditions: "Should my daughter marry and be afflicted with children, the trustees are to pay out of the said legacy two thousand pounds on the birth of the first child to the hospital; four thousand on the birth of the second; six thousand on the birth of the third; and an additional two thousand pounds on the birth of each subsequent child, till the thirty thousand pounds is exhausted. Should any portion of the sum be left at the end of twenty years, the balance is to be paid to her to use as she thinks fit."

The following account is taken from a newspaper, and the writer is unable to vouch for its accuracy:

A certain Henry Budd died in 1862, leaving considerable property. It was to be divided equally among his sons, and held by them as long as they wore no mustaches. Should one of them cease to shave his upper lip, his share would be forfeited. This condition is simplicity itself compared with that laid down by an inhabitant of the English town of Derby. He left all his possessions. He left all his possessions to his oldest son, with the proviso that he

must never use tobacco in any form. If he broke the regulation, the property was to be divided between his six brothers and sisters.

A few years ago a Russian gentleman living at Odessa left four million roubles (one rouble is worth about seventy cents) to his four nieces, but they were to receive the money only after having worked for a year as washerwomen, housemaids or farm servants. The conditions were carried out, and while occupying these positions they are said to have received many offers of marriage.

Kindness to animals seems to be quite common among testators, and hundreds of people have left considerable sums for the comfort of their pets. A spinster who died in London (England), whose name was Charlotte Rosa Raine, bequeated her "dear old white puss Titiens and puss's tabby Rolla, tabby Jennifee and black and white Ursula to Anne Elizabeth Matthews," directing her executors to pay her twelve pounds a year for the maintenance of each cat, so long as it should live. Her long-haired white cat Louise, and her black and white cat Doctor Clausman she gave to her housemaid, Elizabeth Willoughby, and her black ebony and white Oscar to Lavinia Beck, and her executors were directed to pay these persons twelve pounds per annum for the maintenance of each cat. The remainder of her catshow many Miss Raine had is not recordedshe left to the aforesaid Anne Elizabeth Matthews, "to whom one hundred and fifty pounds per annum shall be paid for their maintenance as long as any do live, but such annuity does not apply to kittens born of them." Another eccentric old lady left a few small sums to her relatives, but five hundred pounds a year to be held in trust for her parrot, with five hundred pounds for a new cage for the bird. Yet another lady left a hundred pounds a year for the maintenance of her parrot, which was to be produced twice a year "to prove that the person tending it had not wrung its neck."