페이지 이미지

Page. Pollister v. Mercantile Inst..

355 Poole v. Thatcher....

356 Post v. Kreischer....

384 Potter v. Potter...

378 Potomac Steamboat Co. v. Upper Potomac S. Co.. 215 Pountney v. Clayton..

117 Power v. Kindschi...

293 Powers v. Harlow.

394 Preno v. Hewitt...

97 Price v. People. .

362 Providence & N. Y. S. Co. v. Hill Manuf. Co... 56 Pullman Pal. Car Co. v. Bluhm.

363 Pullman Palace C. C. v. Gardner.

..8, 24




[blocks in formation]

Railroad v. Cunnington...
Randall v. Balt. & O. R. Co.
Rantz v. Barnes...
Rawson v. Spangler..
Rea, Appeal of.
Read v. Middleton...
Reed v. Reed...
Redfield v. Ystalyeera..
Regina v. Holmes.
Regina v. Labouchere.
Reynolds v. Fleming..
Rice v. Railroad Co...
Rice v. Rice,.....
Rice v. Wentworth.
Rich v. Wentz...
Richards v. Hubbard...
Richland Co. v. Richland Center.
Richmond v. Moore..
Rivenett v. Bourquin..
Roakes v. Bailey....
Robb v. Connolly...
Robertson v. Pickrell.
Rock v. Singmaster.
Rockland W. Co. v. Tillson.
Roemer v. Newman.
Rogers v. Elliott....
Rolls v. Miller....
Rosenthal v. Walker.
Rowe v. Ream..
Rowls v. Miller...
Rundlett v. Ladd.
Russell v. W. U. Tel. Co....

457 150

137 .63, 237

138 313 156 175 316 324 195 313

23 176 157

43 412 158 459 155 450 114 296 115 437 198 459 517 496 315 174 462

Smith v. St. Paul C. R. Co.....
Smith v. Simmons..
Snider v. Am. Ex. Co...
Solomon v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
Spofford v. Smith..
Sprague v. Cornish..
State v. Addington..
State v. Benge.
State v. Buzzle...
State v. Carman.
State v. Day..
State v. Dent.
State v. Downs.
State v. Durien..
State v. Elting.
State v. Farrar..
State v. Gould.
Stato v. Hayes.
State v. Ingalls..
State v. Jennett.
State v. Jones,
State v. Kendall
State v. Kenneston.
State v. Mayor...
State v. Mehan...
Stave v. Roberts..
State v. Shoemaker..
State v. Teissedre...
State v. Tilton)...
State v. Williams.
State v. Wolffe...
State v. Yordi.
Stebbins v. Lancashire Ins. Co.,
Steele v. Bond....
Stener v. State...
Stevens v. Griffith.
Stevens v. Miller..
Stewart v. State.
Stokell v. Kimball..
Stork v. Michaels..
Story v. Williamsburgh, etc., B. Asso..
Strahlheim v. Wallach...
Sturlevant v. Havens...
Sullivan v. Iron S. M. Co.......
Sullivan v. Rudisill..
Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miss. T. Co....
Susquehanna B. Co. v. West B. B. Co..
Sutphen v. Sutphen...
Swann v. Fabyan....
Swift v. U. S.....



79 238 219 138 217 103 292 203 356 198 216 279 376 497 379 555 418 317 239 309 616 233 503

56 519

39 215 294 396 436

St. Lawrence, The..
St. Louis v. Meier..
St. Louis School Board v. Wood..
St. Mary's Church v. Tripp..
Salamanca v. Wilson.....
Saunders v. Curtis..
Sanderson v. Penn. Coal Co..
Schmitt v. Cassilius..
Schott v. Harvey...
Schutz v. Ind. B. & W. R. Co..
Schreiber, Matter of..
Scott v. Baltimore..
Scott v. Perlee....
Selleck v. Selleck...
Senendufer y. Pacific.
Sewell, Matter of...
Seybolt v. Long I. R. Co.
Seymour v. Carli...
Shackelford v. Clark..
Sharp v. Whiteside...
Shay v. Thompson...
Shepardson v. Potter..
Sherman Co. v. Simonds.
Sherry v. Gilmore..
Sherwin v. Brigham...
Shiner v. Jacobs...
Shires v. Ashworth.
Sides v. Portsmouth.
Sifred v. Comin....
Sinclair v. Learned
Skaaras v. Finnegan.
Smith v. Comm....
Smith v. Freyler...
Smith v. Gould..
Smith v. Grimhow.
Smith v. Land & H. Corp.
Smith v. McNeal...

Talcott v. Crippen....
Tasker v. Cilley....
Tasker v. Kenton Ins. Co..
Taylor v. Bemis .
Taylor v. Bowker.
Taylor v. Gerrish.
Taylor v. Soper..
Terney v. Wilson..
Terre-Haute & Iud. Ry. Co. v. Struble..
Third Nat. Bank, Buffalo, v. Guenther..
Thomas v. Brownville F. K. & P. R. Co...
Thomas v. People.
Thomas v. Stetson
Thompson v. Allen
Thompson v. Phønix Ins. Co..
Thompson v. Reed.....
Thompson v. Williams
Tillson v. State....
Tilton v. Sanborn.....
Timms v. Baker..
Townsend v. Little..
Township of Aston v. McClure.
Tracy v. Gunn...
Truman v. Loudon..
Tucker v. Jervis
Tucker v. Singer....
Tupper v. Wise....
Turner v. Stewart..
Tyler v. Fickett....
Ullock, The.
U. S. v, Alexander.
U. S. v. Behan...
U. S. v. Brindle..
U. S. v. ('arey
U. S. v. Comrs. of Dodge..

339 377 379

235 .517, 517

458 519 111 16

518 57 57 498 115 295 237 116 495 157 235 356 98 37 418 116 183

57 498 475 223 499 154

38 316 313 378 137 372

76 218 317 448 478 236 218 34

115 158 296 96 39 189 195

78 295 98 35 97 36 459 115 218 337 498 115

456 337 338 312 194 175


Page. U. S. v. Gaylord

78 Westlake v. St. Louis.... U S. v. Grabam.

175 West Loudon, etc., v. Kitson.. U. S. v. Lawton

Wheeler v. Wason Manuf. Co. U. S. v. Jones.

95 Wheelwright v. B. & A. R. Co.. U. S. v. Owens...

118 Wheldon v. Lytle..... U. S. v. Ryder....

355 Whitcher v. ÚcConnell. U. S. v. Sixty-five Terra Cotta Vases.

3 White v. Midd. R. Co.... U, S. v. Ulrici....

455 White v. Stephens... Upmann v. Fores cer..

117 Whittenton Manuf. Co. v. Memphis, etc...

Wilcox v. Chicago.. Vantassel v. State...

219 Wilder v. Comm.. Vinal v. W. Va. O.1, etc., Co.......

154 Wilkins v. Thorne... Vogel v. Gruas....

227 Wilkinson v. Drew.

Wilkinson v. Rewey. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry, Co. v. King..

354 Willard v. Comstock. Walsh v. Mayer..

474 Williams v. Buffalo G, Ins. Co... Wall y. Schneider..

416 Williams v. Hastings... Waples v. U. S..

355 Williams v. Mudgett... Warden v. Baloh....

417 Winchester & P. Manuf. Co. v. Funge.. Warden v. Bowen..

297 Windle v. Jordan.... Warner v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co...

10 Winnetka v. Prouty. Warper v. Moir.....

378 Woodley v. Mitchell.. Warren v. Thomastown...

197 Wolf v. Wolf.. Washburn v. Milwaukee...

416 Wood v. Baxter.. Washer v. Bullit Co..

396 Woodman v. Rowe.... Wash. M. & E. Co. v. Weymouth & B. Mut. F. Ins. Worden v. Graham.. Co...

196 Wright v. Belmont.. Waterbury v. N. Y. C. & H. R. Co..

18 Wright v. Jackson.. Watson v. State....

117 Wyman v. U. S....... Watson v. Watson.

492 Webster v. Buffalo Ins. Co...


Yarbrough, Ex parte.... Welkins v. Ord way..


Young v. Duvall.. Wellington v. Gregsou...

483 Wellman v. Howland.

356 Werden v. Grahain...

479 Zane v. Soffe.


57 480 217

98 476 417

97 198 495

37 418 75 77 476

78 316 217 23 96 237 456

19 504

98 417 58 38 477 194

329 212


[ocr errors]



The Albany Law Journal.

it is well presented, and brings out strongly the insuperable objection to a fixed and known body of

men as triers of fact for the community. ALBANY, JANUARY 5, 1884.

Under the third point Mr. Lewis cleverly presents CURRENT TOPICS.

the argument, which we have often used, based on MHE jury no-question is the subject of some

the impersonality of the jury, and the comparative careful writing by Mr. Eugene Lewis, in the

innocuousness of a wrong verdict, and contrasts January Century. Mr. Lewis considers the abolition

it with the probable result under the other system. of the jury system in three aspects, namely: its

He says: “The odium of an unjust verdict, or one direct effect upon the administration of justice; its

that is condemned by public sentiment, whether ultimate effect upon the constitution and character

such condemnation is merited or not, is divided of the new tribunal; its effect upon public opinion

among twelve men, who separate to their several regarding the administration of justice. Upon the

homes and never meet again to act together under second point he observes: “Any one who has pre

any circumstances whatsoever. If through mistake, or pared a case for an appellate court, when it is es

for any other reason, they have given an unrighteous sential to review the evidence knows how extremely verdict, the harm is largely confined to the particular difficult it is, in many cases, to present any adequate

case decided; there is no danger that the same body picture of the testimony to the higher court, even

will repeat the offense and thus acquire a cumulation

of odium. Would not a succession of unpopular with the aid of a stenographer's report of the testimony. The appearance and manner of the different

verdicts, occurring in tolerably close succession, witnesses, which oftentimes, and justly too, has so

even if right, tend to bring a continuing tribunal much weight with the jury, is entirely wanting. A

into contempt, and would not the tendency be skillful and unscrupulous court, organized in the

toward causing the populace to suspect bribery and interests of a wealthy corporation, seconded by

corruption on the part of the court? Would not

every decision in which there was any general able attorneys, as such corporations usually employ, might make short shrift for a poor man with a

interest, if made contrary to an uninformed public doubtful or even a just cause, aided, as too often

opinion, whether right or wrong, by a court already he would be, only by inexperienced counsel, such

unpopular, add to its unpopularity?” Suppose, for as his lack of means would frequently compel him

example, the verdict of acquittal of Nutt for killing to employ. The testimony in such cases would

Duke, in Pennsylvania, had been the decision of a often not be reported, and very frequently the only judge instead ; the verdict

, although universally often not be reported, and very frequently the only condemned, probably did no harm to any member spectators of the conduct of the court would be the litigants and their witnesses. Moreover, every party

of the jury, certainly none to the general adminihaving a cause for trial could know with tolerable

stration of justice; whereas the same decision by a certainty, for days and usually for weeks and months judge would have almost ruined him, and have before the trial, what persons would constitute the

seriously impaired if not destroyed public confidence

in him in other cases. tribunal which would try the case, and if he had corrupt intentions, would have ample time to discover the weakest points in the character of each The Ohio Law Journal, speaking of the last year's individual composing the tribunal. The old saying, work of the Ohio Supreme Court, says: “The that every man has his price,' is undoubtedly true result of the summing up, at the end of the term, of in the sense that every man is approachable in some the business disposed of by the Supreme Court and way, and is susceptible to certain influences — in Supreme Court Commission during the year, is both some cases consciously, and in others unconsciously.” surprising and satisfactory. For the first time in There is not any thing particularly new in this, but more than twenty years the docket has been re

Var 09 – No 1

duced. At the beginning of the term, there were delivered by Hon. John G. Milburn of Buffalo, eleven hundred and fifty-nine cases pending on the The prize essay will be read. A report will be made general docket; there are now eight hundred and of the visit of the Lord Chief Justice of England, two, showing a reduction of three hundred and fifty- and other interesting exercises will be held. seven cases. The court disposed of three hundred large attendance of the bar of the State is desired and twenty-six, and the commission, which was and expected. organized April seventeentb, two hundred and forty-nine cases on the general docket, making a

Quoting our recent remarks about the judges total of five hundred and seventy-five. The court disposed of three hundred and eighty. Reporter says: “The suggestion about uniformity

wearing gowns, the Kentucky Law Journal and three motions and the commission thirty-six, a total in dress is a good one; not that such a thing can of four hundred and nineteen.” But of this number supply the want of learning, dignity, or any of the of cases one hundred and thirteen were struck from more substantial qualities that make a good judge, the docket. This is certainly a good work for a but a certain degree of formalism is becoming to year, but it is not so great a work as that of our such high officers, and is calculated to inspire and Court of Appeals for the same period.

preserve that respect for the bench to which it is

entitled." We find very little opposition to the A correspondent informs us that we are in error favor of it. A gown would be a particularly safe

project. Most of the influential newspapers are in in stating that our Court of Appeals is the only dress for the Kentucky judges, we should say, for ultimate court in this country that has kept up with they seem to be a mark for the insane assassin's its business for twelve years, and that “the

pistol. Pennsylvania Supreme Court clears its docket with the utmost regularity every year.” That court is one of the ablest in the country, and its reports are

The case of Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, among the most interesting. We believe it disposes post, is well worth reading, especially for the vigorof more causes in a year than our court, but we ous and racy charge of the trial judge. The judge suspect that the magnitude and importance of the raises a very interesting query as to what constitutes questions involved is very much less.

contributory negligence in case of a train robbery. He says: A railroad company “is under no sort of

obligation to keep people from robbing us, except The same correspondent offers the following it would be by an onslaught, open violence on the suggestion for relieving the calendar of the Court cars. In such cases it has been held that the conof Appeals: “ That the cases be submitted on the ductors are bound to protect, not only the persons printed statements of fact and brief of authorities, of passengers, but also their property to a reasonable without oral argument except where the judges extent, as for instance, if some boy, fifteen years of themselves may ask for it, or special causes may be age, with a wooden gun in his hand, should come shown. That there would be a great saving of time in to rob a car, as I believe it is said they do out which is now virtually lost in listening to a mere west, and the passengers should crawl under their repetition or amplification of what is already in the seats, and the conductor and train hands run away, hands of the court, need not be argued.” We when perhaps if they had stood their ground they believe that oral arguments are generally very could have prevented it, the railroad company useful; indeed, in a majority of cases, indispensable, might be responsible if the jury should not find under and that they save time. Our judges do not like the circumstances that the passengers ought to have many submissions. The oral argument points to defended themselves. We used to ride around in the vital questions, and dispenses with a vast stage coaches; if robbed while in them, the comamount of reading. As practiced in our court, oral pany being under no obligation to carry a guard, arguments seldom extend to more than an hour on

was not responsible for the robbery, although you a side, and are generally much shorter. Such might go to sleep, and they knew perfectly well you arguments must be much more satisfactory to the would go to sleep, or ought to suppose you would, profession, and thus to the bench, than submissions, for a man could not ride half a dozen days or nights for the unsuccessful lawyer cannot plead that the without going to sleep; but in the case of a sleepjudges may have overlooked a vital point, or have ing car company the great convenience and induceneglected to read the case and arguments sufficiently ment held out to passengers is that they will give to apprehend the gist of the matter. We should them a comfortable night's rest. They notify them regret to see the rule of submission without oral they will make them pay for it, and say to them you argument adopted.

may go to sleep.” This is rather satirical. The

difficulty in the supposed case is that the passengers The annual meeting of the New York State Bar are not sure that the gun is wooden, and the robber Association will be held in this city, Tuesday 8th will not let them examine. “Quaker" guns kept January, at 11 o'clock A. M. The annual meetings our army at bay some months in front of Manassas of all the standing committees will be held in this Junction, in the civil war, and what better can be city on the 7th January. The oration will be expected of railway passengers?

« 이전계속 »