Obituary Notice of Nelson L. White.

National Convention, at Philadelphia. From 1868 to 1874 he was State's Attorney for Fairfield County, and discharged the duties of the office with singular ability and faithfulness. On the breaking out of the rebellion in 1861 he joined the Wooster Guards of Danbury as a private, and drilled in the company at New Haven, but was rejected by the marshal, because his age was beyond the limit fixed by law. Governor Buckingham immediately commissioned him as a field officer in the 4th Connecticut Infantry. This regiment enlisted for three years, was called to the field in May, 1861, was sent into Virginia early in the summer of that year under General Banks, and was afterwards transferred to the 1st Connecticut Artillery, and took part in guarding the defenses at Washington. It was then joined to the siege artillery, and served gallantly in the peninsular campaign, and under General Grant in the siege of Petersburg and Richmond. Mr. White was lieutenant-colonel of this regiment, and sometimes served as inspector-general. He was mustered out in 1864. His conduct in the army was uniformly that of a hightoned gentleman. His moral influence and weight of character were felt throughout the regiment, and he was universally honored and beloved by officers and soldiers. His labors in behalf of the great temperance movement, as well in the army as after his return, were rewarded by the benedictions of the wives and children of many men who had been saved from ruin by his example and warnings. He loved his profession ardently, and always stood up in defense of the right. He had peculiar power as an advocate, and sometimes spoke with a fervor that made him a dangerous antagonist before a jury. He was very courteous in his demeanor, liberal and unostentatious in his charities, and publicspirited to the full extent of his means. He was fond of having pleasant little chats with his neighbors, and was very sprightly in conversation. He had a temperament eminently hopeful, which could over-ride losses and disappointments in the anticipation of something better. He was devoted to his home and his friends. He was fond of books, especially those relating to history and poetry, and his love of flowers and trees amounted to a passion. He was a man of courage-moral, intellectual, and physical. He did not know what fear was in any of the relations of life. He was a man of impulses and intuitions. He never waited to hear the opinions of others in order to modulate the expression of his own and shape them to some private end, but spoke as he thought and thought as he breathed, with a spontaneity vital as his life. His intellect was moved by his sensibilities, and these were in accord with a sense of right which could hardly have forsaken him even in his sleep. Colonel White came of an old colonial family, and lived up to its record. He possessed great personal advantages and a peculiar patrician style and manner, but at the same time seemed unconscious of them. The thought of himself found little place in his sympathetic and impulsive nature, while the kindliness of his heart yielded only to his sense of justice and his fidelity to truth.

Rules of Practice.

RULES OF PRACTICE

ADOPTED AT NEW HAVEN, AT THE DECEMBER TERM, 1876.

ARGUMENT.

The time occupied in the argument of any cause before the Supreme Court of Errors shall not exceed two hours on each side, without special leave of the court granted before the argument begins. The time thus limited and allowed may be apportioned among counsel on the same side of a case as they may choose; provided, however, that a fair opening of a case shall be made by the party having the opening and closing of the argument.

BRIEFS.

In all causes to be argued counsel upon each side of a case shall exchange briefs with the opposing counsel in the case at least three days before the cause is reached for argument.

INDEX TO THE FORTY-THIRD VOLUME.

protest or declaration made by him at the time See COVENANT AGAINST INCUMBRANCES, 1, 2,

3.
ib.

deprive the debtor of his opportunity to ob.
tain a discharge under the bankrupt act. ib.

BASTARDY COMPLAINT.

A

BURGLARY.

person in the night season entered a dwelling.
house, without breaking, for the purpose of
committing a felony, but broke out in making
his escape. Held to be burglary. State v.
Ward.

CANAL.

CARRIER.

1. The statute (Gen. Statutes, tit. 19, chap. 17,
part 3, sec. 2,) provides that, upon a bastardy
complaint by the mother, if she shall continue
constant in her accusation, being put to the See DEED OF LAND, 1.
discovery in the time of her travail and also
examined on the trial, it shall be primâ facie
evidence that the accused person is the father
of the child. This statute, essentially in its 1.
present form, has been upon the statute book
since 1702. In 1848 an act was passed allow-
ing all parties to actions to testify in their
own behalf. Held that, under this statute,
the mother had all the rights in a bastardy
suit of any other party to a suit, and that she
was not liable to a judgment of non-suit,
under the statute with regard to non-suits
where a primâ facie case is not made out, if
she had failed to make discovery at the time
of her travail. Booth v. Hart.

480

2. The prima facie case intended by the statute
with regard to bastardy complaints is an en-
tirely different thing from the primâ facie
case intended by the statute with regard to
non-suits. The latter deals only with the
weight of evidence, the former with certain
statute pre-requisites that are entirely inde-
pendent of the weight of the evidence. ib.

1. The plaintiff, a real estate broker, having
in his hands certain property of the defendant
for sale or exchange, arranged for an ex-
change with C, and a contract was executed
by C and the defendant by which each was
to take immediate possession of the other's
property, and on or before a day fixed was
to convey his property to the other by war-
ranty deed; and if either should fail to per-
form he was to pay the other five hundred
dollars as liquidated damages. C failed to
perform, without fault on the part of the de-
fendant. Held that the plaintiff was entitled
to his commission. Leete v. Norton.

219

2.

489

It is well settled that common carriers may
stipulate for a less degree of responsibility
than the common law imposes; and cours
differ now only as to the extent to which
under such stipulations, public policy will
allow the stringency of the ancient rule to be
relaxed. Camp v. Hartford & N. York Stean
boat Co.

333

The English courts hold that carriers may
stipulate for entire exemption from responsi
bility, even for their own negligence.
3. The American courts generally hold, in
view of the disadvantage under which the
consignor generally deals with the carrier.
that they will reserve the right to pass upon
the reasonableness of the particular contract
as made, and will not allow the carrier to ex-
empt himself by special contract from the
consequences of his own negligence or that of
his agents.

4. The plaintiff brought an action against the
defendants, a steamboat company, for damage
by a peril of the sea to goods delivered to them
for transportation, declaring against them as
common carriers, and for the purpose of show-
ing the receipt of the goods by the defendants,
offered in evidence a bill of lading signed by
them, in which was a provision that the com
pany should not be responsible for damage to
the goods from any perils or accidents not re
sulting from their negligence or that of their
agents. Held-1. That the exemption stipr
lated for was lawful and valid. 2. That there
was a fatal variance between the declaration
and the proof. 3. That the defendants had
not waived all objection to the evidence on
this ground by not objecting to it when it was
offered, inasmuch as it was admissible for the
purpose of showing that the defendants had
received the goods, and that they had a right
to call upon the court to instruct the jury
that, by reason of the variance, there could be
no recovery upon the declaration.

CEMETERY.

2. The defendant having agreed to accept five 1. The use of land for a burying ground is a

hundred dollars in lieu of performance, would

not be allowed to deny, as against the plain-

tiff, that that payment was equivalent to per-
formance.

ib.

public use, and land may be taken for such a
use under the right of eminent domain, uncer
proper proceedings authorized by law. Ere
green Cemetery Association v. City of New
Chad not in fact paid the money to the de- 2. Where land has been obtained for such a

3. And held that it did not affect the case that

234

use by purchase and conveyance from the