during the Carolina campaign and the march to the and inducements may, by bettors and gamesters, be sea. He became president of the St. Louis Bar Asso-availed of, as well in pool-rooms as on the raceciation and had a wide reputation among lawyers tracks. The court will not lend its equitable process throughout the country. He was offered a seat on in aid of plaintiff in its efforts to promote and inthe bench of the United States Supreme Court by duce acts forbidden by the Constitution and the President Harrison, but declined on account of his law." large practice. He was one of the trustees of the new Carnegie institution and was interested in many public institutions. A jury in the Supreme Court recently awarded a verdict of $8,428.69 to the plaintiff in the case of Welling v. Babcock, tried before Justice McLean. This favorable result was secured through the efforts of John F. Baker, the well-known lawyer. Though opposed by formidable counsel, Mr. Baker prepared his case so carefully and presented the salient points so ably that the jury returned a verdict in his favor. For a considerable time Mr. Baker has practiced his profession in this city and enjoys a well-deserved reputation for professional efficiency. He is well known in business and political circles. He is an earnest and consistent Republican, and has labored constantly to advance the interests of the same in this city. He has been asked repeatedly to accept important political positions, but has always declined to become a candidate, his rapidly-increasing practice and time devoted to literary work requiring his constant attention and study. On account of his experience and thorough knowledge of law his services are always in demand.-N. Y. Financial Review. The attempt of Maxim & Gay, the racing "tip sters," to enjoin "Jack" Sheehan and Edward McGloin, New York city newsmen, and their employes from selling the "tips sent out by the plaintiff firm, has proved unsuccessful. Justice Clarke, in the Supreme Court, has denied their application to continue a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or otherwise disposing of the "tips" purchased by them from the plaintiff corporation. Justice Clarke cites the State .Constitution as to gambling, which makes pool selling and book-making felonies and misdemeanors, with the exception that, in the case of a person making a wager upon the race-track, he shall forfeit the wager, to be recovered in a civil action. He also quotes a decision of the Court of Appeals holding that this statute did not authorize any of the forbidden acts, and that the effect of the section as to betting on race-tracks was merely to reduce the penalty or punishment for that particular offense. "It thus appears," Justice Clarke concludes, "that by the provisions of the Constitution, and by the statutes passed in accordance therewith, as interpreted by our highest court, betting and gambling on horse races is forbidden no less on race-tracks than in pool-rooms, though the penalty therefor prescribed is different for.a violation in one place than in the other. The tips and advertisements of plaintiff are devised and intended as an aid to and an incitement of this forbidden gambling and betting, and such aids The surrogate of Dutchess county, N. Y., has decided that a deed of gift is subject to the collateral inheritance tax, where it is made in contemplation of the death of the grantor and is not intended to take effect until at or after his death. The decision is in connection with the death of Charles Miller, owner of the Phoenix Horseshoe Works, of Poughkeepsie and Joliet, Ill. On the eve of his marriage, in 1893, Mr. Miller transferred to his betrothed 2,000 shares of stock in his company, and on the following day an agreement was made by which the stock was retransferred to Mr. Miller to invest as he might deem proper, subject to the approval of his wife. It was contended by the State comptroller that it was the intention of the transfer of 1893 to suspend possession of the stock until the grantor's death. The surrogate sustains that view and holds that the State should receive a tax on the stock, which is valued at $200,000. Incidentally, the decision of the Supreme Court holding the Illinois anti-trust law invalid suggests the far-reaching importance and value of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution forbidding any State to "deny to any person within make certain contracts and agreements relating to its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To production and trade unlawful, subject those enter ing into them to penalties, and then to exempt from the operation of the law those who raise agricultural products and live stock, is such a flagrant violation of the just principle here embodied that it is strange that a State legislature should venture to enact such a statute. It is a "class" legislation that might lead to intolerable discriminations among citizens, for if farmers could be favored by such exemptions, any class of manufacturers or traders might be, if they had influence enough with legislators. It is fortunate that the United States Constitution contains this guarantee of "equal protection of the laws."- New York Commercial Advertiser. The firm of Evarts, Choate and Beaman of New York, after an existence of nearly forty years, has been dissolved. Ex-Senator Evarts and Beaman, his son-in-law, both died within the last few years, and Mr. Choate is now ambassador to Great Britain. There were four silent partners in the firm, and they were willing to continue to practice under the old name; but Ambassador Choate, during a recent visit to this country, told his associates that as his public duties would very likely occupy a number of years to come, he would prefer to retire from the firm. So the dissolution of the old firm was announced, and a new firm of the surviving partners has been formed. Evarts and Choate made for years the strongest combination of legal talent New York fusion the servants of the crown are bound to take could produce. Theirs was strictly a law practice, covering all fields of the law. The old office at 52 Wall street has been the training school of some of the best lawyers in the country, who were favored in their youth by being taken into the office as law students. English Botes. The Hon. Charles Russell and the Hon. Frank Russell were among the chief mourners at the funeral of the Rev. Mother Emmanuel, only surviving sister of the late Lord Russell of Killowen, which took place recently at the Newry Convent of Mercy. A considerable exodus, says the Pall Mall Gazette, is in process from the Temple to Johannesburg and Pretoria, whither some newly appointed officials of the courts have recently gone. As so many stuff gownsmen are following them it looks as if work before the new tribunals will soon be in full swing. The resettlement of the country will probably keep lawyers busy for some time to come. A supplement to the London Gazette of February 28 contains the only authorized list of dormant or unclaimed funds in the several divisions of the High Court which have not been dealt with since September 1, 1886. The aggregate amount is about 1,050,oool., distributed over more than 3,200 separate accounts. One-half of these do not exceed 150l. in value, and only about one-twentieth exceed 1,000l. There was a time when the mayors of Bristol would visit London for the double purpose of exercising a privilege and astonishing the presiding judge at the Old Bailey. Such an instance, which afforded some amusement, relates the Daily Chronicle, occurred in 1762, when John Noble was mayor of Bristol. In virtue of his office he was one of the judges of the Admiralty Court, and entitled to take! his seat on the bench. John visited London for the special purpose of asserting his right, and succeeded in establishing his claim, to the great surprise of the presiding judge, who very politely apologized, and requested his worship to take the chair. The mayor, however, was quite satisfied with the acknowledgment, as politely declined, and, with a superb bow to the judge, left the court. all measures to save the State and protect their sovereign. But to tell us that soldiers are to be the sole judges of the necessity, of the conditions and limits of their powers, are never to be accountable to any civil tribunal, are to be what the king is, i. e., 'can do no wrong,' and are judge, jury, counsel, and witnesses in their own case; this is enough to make Coke, Hale, Blackstone, and Mansfield turn in their graves." Law Times. "Where's the man?" exclaimed the old gentleman. 'Here, sir; here!" proudly replied the young man. This is he. At last I'm twenty-one." A lawyer, while bathing, was attacked by a shark. He managed to beat off his assailant and struggled back to shore. Once in safety on the beach he shook his fist at the retiring and disappointed shark, and gasped out: "You brute! That's the most abominable breach of professional etiquette I have ever known."- Exchange. An episode has been recalled in the life of the late Justice Field, of the United States Supreme Court, whose temper was of the most irascible kind. He had given instructions to his servant on a certain morning that he was not to be disturbed. Presently there came a ring at the door bell and an aggressive book agent appeared. "I want to see Justice Field." he said. "Impossible." Mr. Frederic Harrison, of Lincoln's inn, whose views on the Marais case are well known, has issued The conversation grew more emphatic, until finally a pamphlet entitled "The State of Siege," in which the persistent book agent's demands echoed through he says: "There is but one public law, where not the house. At that moment Justice Field, who had specially modified, for all the Britains. All Britons, been attracted by the altercation, appeared at the enjoy the same constiutional right, which is one and indivisible. And the foundations of this right disappear, if when it is necessary anywhere to appeal to the sword, the only rule is to be—inter arma silent leges-nay, too, silet jus — silent jurisconsulti. No lawyer doubts that in extreme peril and con head of the stairs. "William," he said, in a fiercely angry tone, "show the brazen scoundrel up to me; if you cannot handle him, I will." The book agent made no further effort to break into the justice's presence.- Exchange. The Albany Law Journal. A Monthly Record of the Law and the Lawyers. Published by THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL COMPANY, Albany, NY. Contributions, items of news about courts, judges and lawyers queries or comments, criticisms on various law questions, addresses on legal topics, or discussions on questions of timely interest, are solicited from members of the bar and those interested in legal proceedings. [All communications intended for the Editor should be addressed simply to the Editor of THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL. All letters relating to advertisements, subscriptions or other business matters should be addressed to THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL COMPANY.]! Judge Parker enunciates the principle that "a labor organization is endowed with precisely the same right as is an individual to threaten to do that which it may lawfully do." The opinion is able, clear and well-reasoned. It seems to us entirely just. It is regarded as the greatest victory that organized labor in this State has ever obtained. The necessity for a strict compliance with Subscription price, Three Dollars per annum, in advance. Single the statutory rules regarding the execution number, Twenty-five Cents. ALBANY, N. Y., MAY, 1902. ', Current Topics. of wills is again illustrated by a case recently decided by the surrogate of Kings county in this State. The statute requires that the will must be signed at the end and declared in the presence of at least two witnesses, who must An important decision sustaining the right of labor unions to limit their membership be requested by the testator to attest it. The and to refuse to work with non-union men witnesses, moreover, must sign in his preswas handed down recently by the New York ence and in the presence of each other. In Court of Appeals, in the case of the National the case in point, the will before Surrogate. Protective Association of Steam Fitters and Church was that of Emma Kivlin. She Helpers and Charles McQuade, appellants, asked Mrs. Von Bargen and her son to witagainst James M. Cummings and others, re- ness her will, which she said was made out. spondents. The court was divided, the pre- and ready for them to sign. Later on she vailing opinion being written by Chief Judge spoke to Mrs. Von Bargen again. The latParker and concurred in by Judges Gray, ter took the will, and in the absence of the O'Brien and Haight. It is dissented from by testatrix requested her son to witness the inJudges Bartlett, Martin and Vann. The pre-strument with her. Both Mrs. Von Bergen vailing opinion, which we publish in another and her son signed, and then the will was part of this issue of the Albany Law Journal, we regard as one of the most important and significant handed down by the highest court of this State for a long time. It affirms the right of workingmen to organize for mutual benefit and protection, to work or not, at will, provided they have not agreed otherwise, and to strike, provided the object is not to gratify malice or inflict injury upon others, but to secure better terms of employment for themselves. The "meat" of the decision is the statement of the court that a body of men combined in a labor organization for purposes deemed beneficial to themselves, have the right when they deem it detrimental to the interests of their organization to refuse to work, more especially as they must assume all the risk of injury that may come to them been a complete failure to comply with the through the carelessness of co-employes. statutory provisions, probate must be denied given back to the decedent. The latter did not specifically acknowledge her signature to the two witnesses, nor did she at any time acknowledge the paper to be her will, or the subscription to be hers, or request the young man to sign as a witness. These facts, says Surrogate Church, show the failure to comply with the provisions of the statute. He characterizes the case as an illustration of the folly of persons endeavoring to attend to their own legal matters, particularly when it comes to the execution of a will. "There is no doubt," he continues, "but that the deceased intended this paper to be her will, but the courts have held that the intent of the deceased cannot be paramount to the intent of the Legislature, and that where there has VOL. 64.- No. 5. from reasons of public policy, and the courts have gone so far in this matter to even refuse probate to holographic wills where there could be no possible doubt as to the intent of the deceased." or advocate such doctrine, is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. 468c. Liability of editors and others. Every editor or proprietor of a book, newspaper or serial and every manager of a partnership or incorporated association by which a book, newspaper or serial is issued, is chargeable with the publication of any matter contained in such book, newspaper or serial. But in every prosecution therefor, the defendant may show in his defense that the matter complained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes, by another who had no authority from him to make the publication and whose act was disavowed by him as soon as known. The detestable crime at Buffalo, last September, by which the Nation was deprived of its Chief Magistrate, has led to the enactment of laws in various States of the Union, whose object is to prevent the recurrence of such a crime by stamping out anarchy. Several other States besides New York have enacted such laws, but it is probable that none of them are more comprehensive than that which became chapter 371 of the Laws of New York, by the signature of Governor an assembly is unlawful, and every person volunOdell, last month. The new law becomes a part of the Penal Code by adding to title 13 five new sections, designated as 468a, 468b, 468c, 468d, 468e. The law provides as follows: Sec. 468a. Criminal anarchy defined.- Criminal anarchy is the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony. 468b. Advocacy of criminal anarchy. Any person who: By word of mouth or writing advocates, advises or teaches the duty, necessity or propriety of overthrowing or overturning organized government by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means; or, prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells, distributes or publicly displays any book, paper, document, or written or printed matter in any form, containing or advocating, advising or teaching the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence or any unlawful means; or, openly, willfully and deliberately justifies by word of mouth or writing the assassina-, tion or unlawful killing or assaulting of any executive or other officer of the United States or of any ⚫ State or of any civilized nation having an organized government, because of his official character, or any other crime, with intent to teach, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines of criminal anarchy: or organizes or helps to organize or becomes a member of or voluntarily assembles with any society, group or assembly of persons formed to teach 468d. Assemblages of anarchists. Whenever two or more persons assemble for the purpose of advocating or teaching the doctrines of criminal anarchy, as defined in section 468a of this title, such tarily participating therein by his presence, aid or instigation, is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. 468e. Permitting premises to be used for assemblages of anarchists.- The owner, agent, superintendent, janitor, care-taker or occupant of any place, building or room, who willfully and knowingly permits therein any assemblage of persons prohibited by section 468 of this title, or who, after notification that the premises are so used permits such use to continue, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. The question has frequently arisen, inside as well as outside of court rooms, whether one of the members of a jury which failed to agree, after being out all night, was right or wrong in standing out to the end; in other words, whether a member of a jury could, without violating his obligation, set aside his own conscientious conviction and conclusion, formed after hearing all the testimony and arguments, for the purpose of making an accord with the eleven other members of the jury who differed from him. That question was put to Judge Davis, of the Common Pleas Court, No. 5, Philadelphia, not long ago, and he answered in this vigorous and unequivocal fashion: must be, by the charge of the court, would be a different verdict. 66 He thought that when a coward if he were to submit to the dictation of the woman was placed on trial, the jury, at least, other members of the jury, unless he were con- if not the judge, should be composed of vinced that his position was a mistaken one. On women. He warned women who enter a prothe other hand, the man who refuses to violate his fession against the evil of becoming unsexed. conscience is a brave man, compelling respect and 'Retain your charms," he said. "Retain deserving regard. It does not always follows that the eleven men in the jury, who are often jokingly your gentleness, and remember that, although called the eleven stubborn men, are correct in their you have a profession, you are still a woman.” conclusion. It may be that the single juror is the Mr. Wu believes that medicine and the law one who has reached the proper conclusion under present good fields for the ambitions of the the law and the testimony. Majorities are not often fair sex. In this view he will find himself right; frequently the minority is decidedly so." antagonized by a very large and influential element of the American people who believe that woman's proper sphere is in the home, and that it must ever be. Still, Minister Wu may Judge Davis is right. Majorities may be and often are wrong, though it must be conceded that the probability of the majority being right seems greater than that of the be right and the American people wrong. single member of the minority being so. At the same time, the majority is not necessarily right. As every man in the jury box is expected to listen and to think for himself, it follows that he is derelict in his duty if he does not do so, irrespective of any conclusions reached by his associates. An interesting suit has recently been decided in the Supreme Court involving questions of importance to the mercantile community respecting the law of libel. The case was that of "Edward Payson Critcher v. William E. Bishop and the New York Bureau of Information," which was tried in New York city before Hon. W. S. Andrews and a jury. It seems Wu Ting-fang, the Chinese Minister, is that the New York Bureau of Information (of nothing if not original. He attended the ban- which William E. Bishop is secretary) is a quet of the Washington College of Law in the corporation organized for the purpose of furnational capital not long ago, and took occasion nishing to a limited number of subscribers, to pay his respects to American womanhood composed principally of financial and comin the course of his response to the toast mercial houses, information respecting fraudu"The American Woman." He confessed that | lent and swindling advertising and charitable his opinion of womanhood had undergone a schemes. In August last an inquiry came to radical change since the time he first came here as the representative of his country. He had no hesitation in declaring that women, American women, in eloquence and intellect, had demonstrated at least their equality with men. He entered a strong and earnest plea in behalf of the admission of women on the juries of the various courts of the country, citing a recent case in which the disadvantages of the present system had been brought home, a case in which a woman was on trial charged with the crime of murder. This woman was, he believed from the evidence adduced on the trial, guilty of the crime charged, yet because she had the advantage of eminent and learned counsel and because she was young and attractive was allowed to go "scot free." A jury of women, he thought, might have rendered a the bureau from one of its regular subscribers asking information in regard to one Edward Payson Critcher, who was soliciting advertisements for a page of the New York Tribune to be devoted to financial and insurance houses. Without going to the New York Tribune or making proper investigation the secretary of the bureau jumped to the conclusion that this must be the same man as one Edward Payson Weston, a wholly different individual, and thereupon sent out to all the subscribers of the bureau one of its regular printed reports or circulars marked Confidential" and containing the following: "A man giving the name of Edward Payson Critcher is soliciting for subscriptions to a financial page of the 66 New York Tribune.' It is supposed to be a page set aside for the purpose of advertising |