« 이전계속 »
sidered, but exemplary damages are not proper. action of its business,” may purchase its own stock. Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, p. 409.
Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa, 25, p. 140. CONSPIRACY. — The eighteen defendants, journey- CRIMINAL LAW. — It is unlawful for the occuman tailors, working for the plaintiff by the piece, pant of lands to set spring-guns or other mischievby conspiracy stopped work simultaneously, and re- ous weapons on his premises, and if the same cause turned their work to the plaintiff unfinished, and death to any trespasser it is a criminal homicide. worthless in that condition. The plaintiff was una- But to authorize a conviction of assault with intent ble to get any hands to finish the work. Held, that to commit a murder, a specific felonious intent must he might maintain an action of damages. Map- be proved; and so, where one plants such weapons strick v. Ramge, 9 Neb. 390, p. 415.
with the general intent to kill trespassers, and CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. An act of the Legisla-wounds a particular person, he cannot be convicted ture authorizing the opening of an existing judg- of assault with intent to commit murder. The inment is unconstitutional. Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 tent to kill that particular person alone must be Gratt. 105, p. 716.
shown, and cannot be implied from the general conA statute providing that no person shall recover duct. Simpson v. State, 59 Ala. 1, p. 1. damages from a municipality for an injury from a A receipt for money as part of the purchase-price defect in a highway, unless he resides in a country of a farm is an “acquittance" within the statute of where similar injuries constitute a like cause of ac- forgery, and an indictment for forgery thereof is tion, is unconstitutional. Pearson v. City of Port- good without charging any extrinsic dealings beland, 69 Me. 278, p. 276.
tween the parties. State v. Shelters, 51 Vt. 102, p. A farm overseer is not a “laborer” within the 679. constitutional provision giving to mechanics and A county treasurer, without authority, issued and laborers a lien on the subject of their labor for their negotiated instruments for the payment of money, compensation. Whitaker v. Smith, 81 N. C. 340, p. purporting in the body to be the obligations of the 503.
county, but signed only by him in his own name, The right to exemption from execution is a per- with the addition, “treasurer.” Held, not to be sonal privilege which the debtor may waive, and forgery, the same not “ being or purporting to be such a waiver in a promissory note is binding upon the act of another" within the statute. People v. him. Brown v. Leitch, 60 Ala. 313, p. 42.
Mann, 75 N. Y. 484, p. 482. CONTRACT. A note written and dated in Maine, Where the prisoner, in sport and without criminal but signed in Massachusetts by the wife of a citizen design, aimed a pistol at another, both supposing it of that State, as surety for her husband, and re- to be unloaded, and the prisoner pulled the trigger, turned by mail to the payee in Maine, is a Maine whereby the pistol was discharged and the other contract, and is enforceable in Maine although void was killed, held, no crime. Robertson v. State, 2 Lea, by the laws of Massachusetts. Bell v. Packard, 69 239, p. 602. Me. 105, p. 251
Where an officer had in custody a prisoner charged Where a bank discounted a note, its officers know- with a misdemeanor, and the prisoner trying to esing that the proceeds were to be used for an unlaw- cape, the officer shot and killed him, without intendful purpose, but not intending to aid such purpose, ing his death, he was guilty of manslaughter. Rethe note is not invalid. Henderson v. Waggoner, 2 neau v. State, 2 Lea, 720, p. 626. Lea, 133, p. 591.
One who finds lost goods which have no marks or The plaintiff agreed, in writing, to serve the de- indications of ownership, and who does not know fendant for three years, as superintendent and man- the owner, is not bound to exercise diligence to asager of his manufactory of clothing, and to devote certain the owner, and is not guilty of larceny in his whole time, attention and skill thereto; and the retaining the goods. State v. Dean, 49 Iowa, 73, p. defendant agreed to pay him therefor $3,000 a year, 143. in equal monthly payments. The plaintiff, with- A corporation is indictable for libel, and the joinout fault on his part, was arrested and kept in jail der of an individual in a separate count is not error. for about a fortnight, during the busiest season, and State v. Atchison, 3 Lea, 729, p. 663. the defendant hired another person in his place. Every man is primarily presumed sane, but when On being released the plaintiff tendered his services, facts are proved tending to engender a doubt of the which the defendant refused. He had been paid in sanity of a person accused of crime, it devolves on full for the time he actually worked. Held, that the State to remove that doubt and establish the the plaintiff could not maintain an action of dam- sanity of the prisoner to the satisfaction of the jury, ages for breach of the agreement. Leopold v. Sal- beyond all reasonable doubt. Cunningham v. State, key, 89 Ill. 412, p. 93.
56 Miss. 269, p. 360. A stipulation by the vendee of a newspaper to The complainant was fraudulently induced by two pay
"all of the outstanding liabilities” of the pa- confederates to expose some money in his hand; one per, will not make the vendee liable for the dam- of them then snatched it from him and ran away, ages for libel subsequently recovered against the while the other held him so that he should not purvendor, in a suit pending when the sale of the paper sue, and a struggle between them ensued. Held, was made. Perret v. King, 30 La. Ann. 1368, p. 240. that this did not constitute robbery. Shinn v. State, CORPORATION. — A corporation, with power
to 64 Ind. 13, p. 110. purchase “property deemed desirable in the trans- A statute provided for the punishing of the seduction of any unmarried woman “of previously Held, that he was entitled to recover. Whitcomb v. chaste character.” Held, that “character” referred | Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79, p. 678. to moral qualities and not to reputation, and evi- INSURANCE. – Where, in a contract of insurance dence of reputation was not admissible upon the which covers a storehouse and the goods therein, it issue of character, but only to impeach or corrobo- is stipulated that should the assured subsequently rate testimony regarding particular acts of unchas- take out a policy in any other
the assurers tity. State v. Prizer, 49 Iowa, 531, p. 155.
should receive notice of it on pain of forfeiting their DAMAGES. - An abutting owner, who does not policy, a subsequent assurance of the house or the own the soil of the street, cannot recover for any goods in another company, without notice to the injury to his freehold resulting from the presence of assurers, will work the forfeiture of the contract a steam railway in the street, but only for damages with them, whether the subsequent contract was resulting from such misconduct in its management legally enforceable or not. Allen v. Merchants' Muas amounts to a nuisance, as leaving cars standing tual Ins. Co., 30 La. Ann. 1386, p. 243. an unreasonable time, unnecessary noises and dan- A policy of fire insurance conditioned to be void gerous speed. Grand Rapids & Indiana R. R. Co. for over-valuation is avoided by any substantial overv. Fleisel, 38 Mich. 62, p. 306.
valuation, whether fraudulent or innocent. Boutelle DEED. — A purchaser of land is not affected with v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 51 Vt. 4, p. 666. constructive notice of a prior unrecorded convey- INSANITY. — A widow, in consequence of her ance by the mere fact that he was one of the sub). | lunacy, neglected to dissent from the provisions of scribing witnesses thereto. Vest v. Michie, 31 Gratt. her husband's will within the statutory time. Held, 149, p. 722.
that she might afterward, in equity, claim her rights EVIDENCE. — In an action on a policy of insur- in the estate as if she had duly dissented. Wright ance on the life of one for the benefit of another, v. West, 2 Lea, 78, p. 586. the declarations of the insured, before or after the JUDGMENT. - A physician sued for services, in a insurance, are not competent evidence, unless part justice's court; the defendant answered, but withof the res gesto. Mobile Life Insurance Co. v. Mor- drew his answer, and the plaintiff got judgment ris, 3 Lea, 101, p. 631.
without consent. Held, a bar to a subsequent action An instrument in this form: “ Received of A. by the defendant against the physician, for malprac$500 due on demand,” is open to parol explanation tice in rendering those services. Blair v. Bartlett, of its consideration, to show that it was intended 75 N. Y. 150, p. 445. as a mere receipt. De Lavallette v. Wendt, 75 N. Y. MARRIAGE. A married woman, by the terms of 579, p. 494.
a deed to her, assumed and agreed to pay a mortIn the case of a mother, aged sixty-nine years, her gage existing upon the conveyed premises. Ileld, son-in-law, aged forty-five, and his two children, that this made her personally liable for the mortgage aged respectively ten and seven years, who all per- debt, and that her grantee, in like manner as
assuming ish in the same shipwreck, there is no presumption the mortgage, was likewise liable, and a judgment of survivorship. Newell v. Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78, p. against him for deficiency on foreclosure was proper. 424.
Cashman v. IIenry, 75 N. Y. 103, p. 437. EXEMPTION. - A partnership is not within the Equity will enforce a note executed by a husband language or intendment of the exemption law, and to his wife, during coverture, in consideration of her hence none of the property of a partnership is ex- moneys received or collected by him. Mc Campbell empt from seizure on execution. White v. Heffner, v. Me Campbell, 2 Lea, 661, p. 623. 30 La. Ann. 1280, p. 238.
Under a statute which enables married women to Partnership property is not exempt from execu- acquire, hold and deal with property, and to sue and tion, before division and settlement of the part- be sued in the same manner as if unmarried, and nership affairs. Spiro v. Paxton, 3 Lea, 75, p. relieves all such property, except such as comes by 630.
gift from their husbands, from liability to the disGIFT. — S. deposited in a savings bank moneys posal of their husbands or for their debts, a married belonging to her in trust for M. and K., who were woman may maintain an action against her husband her distant relatives. She retained the pass-books on a note given directly to her by him for a valuable until her death, drawing out only one year's interest, consideration during coverture. May v. May, 9 Neb. and M. and K. were ignorant of the deposit. Held, 16, p. 399. that the transaction constituted an effectual trust A divorce was granted in a suit brought in the for their benefit on the death of S. Martin v. name of an insane wife, in confinement in an asylum Funk, 75 N. Y. 134, p. 446.
in another State. On a bill on her behalf to set INFANCY. — Plaintiff, falsely representing himself aside the divorce, alleging that it was procured by to be of full age, bought a wagon, paying part, and the fraud of the husband, held, that, whether there giving his note secured by a lien on the wagon for was fraud, in fact or not, the law would presume the remainder. After using the wagon until the use fraud, and set aside such a divorce, no matter by was worth more than what he had paid, and until it whose advice it was obtained. Bradford v. Abend, had depreciated by more than a like sum, he made 89 Ill. 78, p. 67. default in payment, whereupon defendant took the MECHANICS' LIEN. Although land donated and wagon under his lien, and sold it at action. Plaint- devoted to public uses cannot be subjected to debts iff brought assumpsit for the money he had paid. 'of the municipality, yet a public building thereon,
as a jail, is subject to a mechanics' lien in favor of the note, is not binding. Workman v. Wright, 33 one who built it for the municipality. McKnight v. Ohio St. 405, p. 546. Parish of Grant, 30 La. Ann. 361, p. 226.
One who transfers a negotiable promissory note MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. – A person who volun- by indorsement without recourse impliedly wartarily attempts to pass over a sidewalk of a city, rants the genuineness of the prior signatures, and which he knows to be dangerous by reason of ice that so far as he is concerned the paper expresses upon it, which he might easily avoid, cannot be re- the exact legal obligations of all such prior parties. garded as exercising ordinary prudence, and cannot Challiss v. McCrum, 22 Kans. 157, p. 181. maintain an action against the city to recover for OFFICE AND OFFICER. — A county treasurer and injuries sustained by falling upon the ice. Schaefter his sureties are not liable for public moneys of which v. City of Sandusky, 33 Ohio St. 246, p. 533. the principal was violently robbed without his fault.
Alleys are not primarily designed as streets, but Cumberland v. Pennell, 69 Me. 351, p. 284. simply as a means of local convenience to a limited PARENT AND CHILD. – A father
his neighborhood, and a roof twelve or fifteen feet over years of age, to a man of good character and ample and above an alley is not necessarily an obstruction. means, to keep him during minority. The father Beecher v. People, 38 Mich. 289, p. 316.
dying three years afterward, the mother brought A municipal corporation granted permission, by habeas corpus for the child. Held, that she was enordinance, to a street railway company to lay a titled to his custody, although she was poor and dedouble track in its streets. The company proceeded pendent, and he preferred remaining with defendto do so, and expended large sums of money in the ant. Moore v. Christian, 56 Miss. 408, p. 375. work. Held, that the municipal corporation could PARTITION. — The court has no jurisdiction to not thereafter restrict the permission to a single order partition of lands, between heirs of a father, track, it not appearing that the double track would where the petition alleges that one heir is alive and cause any injury or inconvenience. City of Burling- that the mother is pregnant by the father. Gillespie ton v. Burlington Street Railway Co., 49 Iowa, 144, v. Nabors, 59 Ala. 441, p. 20.
PARTY WALL. - One owner of a party wall, who NATIONAL BANK. A National bank organized as adds to it for his own use, may maintain an action successor to a State bank may maintain an action to of contribution against the other owner who has foreclose a mortgage of real estate executed to the used such additions, for one-half the value of the State bank as security for a note, and assigned to it additions when made. Sanders v. Martin, 2 Lea, by the State bank on the formation of the National 213, p. 598. bank. Schofield v. State National Bank of Lincoln, SALE. - Where goods are sold for cash, and de9 Neb. 316, p. 412.
livered, the vendor taking the vendee's check for A National bank has no power to deal or specu- the price, which on presentment four days therelate in promissory notes or to acquire title thereto, after is dishonored, the vendor may rescind the conexcept by discount. First National Bank of Roches-tract and reclaim the goods. Hodgson v. Barrett, 33 ter v. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140, p. 341.
Ohio, 63, p. 527. Under the National Bank Act, in an action upon On a sale of goods by a manufacturer for a para note usuriously discounted by a National bank, the ticular purpose, there is an implied warrant of fitamount of the usury may be set off by an accommo- ness for that purpose; but the manufacturer is not dation indorser, although the note does not carry bound to furnish the best that are or can be made, interest on its face. National Bank of Auburn v. but only such as are usually made and used, and as Lewis, 75 N. Y. 516, p. 484.
are reasonably fit for the purpose. Harris v. Waite, NEGLIGENCE. - One who signs and delivers a con- 51 Vt. 481, p. 694. tract, in form like a negotiable promissory note, Where goods are sold to one for the use and benbut with a condition limiting his liability, so ap- efit of another, by whom they are received and used, pended as to be capable of separation, leaving an the latter cannot be held therefor merely upon his apparently perfect note, is liable to an innocent in- acknowledgment of the correctness of the account dorser of such note who acquires the same for value and his oral promise to pay it. Hendricks v. Robinand before maturity, after such separation has been son, 56 Miss. 694, p. 382. made by the payee, without the maker's knowledge. SLANDER AND LIBEL. – To charge a physician Noll v. Smith, 64 Ind. 511, p. 131.
with “malpractice” in a particular case is not conA boy, twelve years of age, was injured while clusively libellous in itself, if untrue, but it is for playing on a railway turn-table, left unlocked and the jury to determine whether the word was used unguarded, in an open prairie, where persons fre- in a general and actionable sense. Rodgers v. Kline, quently passed. Held, that the questions of negli- 56 Miss. 808, p. 389. gence and contributory negligence were for the jury. To charge a candidate for a popular office with Kansas Central Railway Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 22 Kans. being uneducated, lazy, idle, and ignorant, is not 586, p. 203.
libellous; nor is it libellous per se to charge him with NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. – A mere promise to being “a social leper” who should be “deodorpay a forged note, when such promise is given by ized.” But otherwise to charge him with being a the supposed maker of the note without any new professional gambler, bully, thief and whore-masconsideration, and after the promisee has acquired ter. Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W. Va. 158, p. 757.
SUNDAY. — Although a contract of sale on Sun- (3 Col. Doc. 023.) This grant, the Crown had afterward day is void, yet the seller cannot recover the chat
no power to either retract or annul. (Chitty's Prerog.
33.) As thus established the constituents of the protels sold nor damages for their value. Otherwise,
vincial government were as follows: the governorif he had been intoxicated by the purchaser for the deriving his power from the King's commission under purpose of defrauding him. Block v. McMurry, 56 the great seal, and his rules of conduct from the King's Miss. 217, p. 357.
instructions under the sign manual-was the immediate Where one walking on the Lord's day for exercise
representative of the Crown; the provincial councilwent into a beer shop and drank a glass of beer and deriving their authority, both legislative and execu
tive, from the King's instructions -- constituted the on resuming his walk was injured solely by a defect
upper legislative house; while the representative asin the highway, held, that he might recover. Da- sembly, chosen by the provincial electors, comprised vidson v. City of Portland, 69 Me. 116, p. 253. the lower house, representing the commons of the TRIAL.
The formation of the provincial government of New case, after the jury has retired to consider of the
York remains a subject of interest, for even now – verdict, induced by a sudden alarm of fire in the
quite aside from the source from which the powers of vicinity of the jury-room, is not of itself such mis
government emanate - its structure is but slightly conduct as will vitiate the verdict made on reassem- modified. bling. Armleder v. Lieberman, 33 Ohio St. 77, p. 530.
The limitation on the legislative powers of the proWATER AND WATER-COURSES. — A railroad com
vincial government - that the laws made by their
authority should not be repugnant to the laws of Engpany constructed an embankment on its own land,
land - long remained a fruitful theme of controversy. whereby the surface-water was thrown upon the The Anglo-American inhabitants contended that the land of an adjoining owner. Held, that no action English Constitution, as it was exbibited in tho great would lie therefor, although the company could
fundamental acts, was the paramount law of their new
situation. The qualified denial of this last principle have prevented the injury by a culvert. Atchison,
furnishes the key to the future differences with the Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. Hammer, 22
parent land. By the colonists' assertion, that the planKans. 763, p. 216.
tations and provinces of America were entitled to the “The owner of land planted a row of trees on his common law of England, tho Constitution of England own land, and along the division line between his was meant; for the common law was conceived to be land and that of an adjoining proprietor, the effect
a limitation, within well-established bounds, of the
prerogative and of those powers of subordinate legisof which was to obstruct the passage of drift-wood
lation, judicial and otherwise, which flowed from the carried upon the land of the adjoining proprietor, prerogative. It is important that this general assertion by the overflow of a water-course adjacent to the on the part of tho colonists should not be confounded lands of both proprietors, to the injury of such ad
with their right to the purely juridical rules concerning jacent land. IIeul, that no action would lie there
the extra-territorial operation of particular parts of the
statute and judiciary law of England - a question, in for. Taylor v. Fickas, 64 Ind. 167, p. 114.
tho main, of minor moment. Notwithstanding the WITNESS. - An accomplice who is introduced as
fact that tho municipal laws of the original colonies a witness and testifies to the facts within his knowl- exhibited differences at the time of the American edge, withholding nothing because of its tendency revolution - differences which have continued to effect to self-crimination, has an equitable claim to execu
their jurisprudence--- there was a unanimous assertion
of their right to the English Constitution in so far as tive clemency, or the solicitor may enter a nolle
it related to political and civil rights, and their respectprosequi, but the fact does not constitute a legal de
ivo guaranties. fense to a prosecution against him for the same Tho distinguishing feature of the government of offense. State v. Lyon, 81 N. C. 600, p. 518.
Englishmen had thitherto from the earliest periods been its entire subordination to the law of the land, tho folk law, or jus commune. The American Revo
lution was a vindication of this principle and the OBSERVATIONS ON THE PARTICULAR
subordination of the present government, State and JURISPRUDENCE OF NEW YORK.
Federal, to the fundamental law of the land—but a
protean form of the common law exhibited in conV.
stitutional codes — is perhaps but the evolution of
certain rugged principles of the common law. The THE laws of New York, enacted in the proprietary permanence of established institutions may be said, in
and the succeeding periods of government, were somo respects, to depend on the closest adherence to not abrogated either by the flight of James II. or by the race principles of legislation, and any wido departure English Revolution. The legal effect of the revolution from them, to jeopardize institutions of a normal was analogous to the demise of the Crown; the pre- growth. It is doubtless for this reason that many rogatives remain substantially the same as before, Americans instinctively distrust any arbitrary atbut the right of the house of Brunswick to exer- tempt at a codification, fearing that it aims at engraftcise them was deduced from the convention of 1688. ing tho subtler elements of the Roman juridical (3 IIal. Const. Hist. 95.) This principle, though as- system which has never permanently coalesced with cribed to England, applied equally to the trans-atlan- free institutions. In this connection, the legislation of tic dependences of the Crown,
tho province of New York is interesting to present The government of the Province of New York was, conditions. by the new sovereigns, William and Mary, placed on a The era of regular legislation in New York is said to permanent footing through the definitive grant of a begin with tho year 1691, doubtless because the revisrepresentative assembly. The royal commission to ers of the provincial laws were directed to begin with Colonel Sloughter - the first governor after the change the acts of the assembly of that year. But, as has of succession — authorized him, with the advice of the already been pointed out, the Assemblies of 1683-4 and council, to summon assemblies as need should require. '65 must not be disregarded, for they at least indicate the condition which the provincial law had attained not an index to the laws included in the various when the assemblies of the more regularly organized bound volumes now extant, as the original subscribprovincial establishments began. (24 Wend. 6:25.) The ers have, for their own convenience, caused the laws New York Civil List (ed. of 1807) contains an inter- of sessions of a date later than the title page to be inesting account of the early Assemblies. But in cluded by the binders. The least known of the regureading it, we should notice that it is now esteemed lar editions of Bradford's imprints are those of 1694 an error to designate the convention of the dele- and 1710. That of 1710 may be considered a revision gates from the Long Island towns in 1665 a legisla- of the laws between 1091 and 1709, for it was published tive assembly, for it was convened for a special purpose in one volume, in obedience to an order of the Assemonly - the settlement of town boundaries, and it pos- bly, that Mr. Bradford do print all the acts of the As. sessed no legislative powers. (Dawson's Sons of Lib- sembly “now in force.” A copy of the 1710 edition erty, p. 16; 2 Brodhead's N.Y., 67–9.) The first regular is in the New York Historical Society collection. In legislative assembly of New York was that of 1683-4; 1713 Bradford struck off another title-page edition, an instructive and able account of its proceedings, as which includes the acts passed between 1709 and well as of those of the second Assembly, held in 1685, 1713 ; a copy of the latter is in the State Library appears in the late Dr. O'Callaghan's Historical Intro- at Albany. The New York Historical Society has duction to the Journal of the Legislative Council, also a title-page edition of 1719, which includes the published by the State in 1861. The Civil List contains laws enacted between 1713 and 1719. A copy of Bradalso references to the Leisler Assemblies (p. 28), but it ford's title-page edition of 1726, containing the laws is doubtful whether these may properly be deemed passed between 1719 and 1725, is in the libraries of the legislatures. During the troublesome times in England New York Law Institute and the Historical Society. attending the downfall of the house of Stuart, Captain The latter society possesses also a copy of Bradford, Jacob Leisler, who had seized the government of New which contains the acts from 1726 to 1735, in addiYork in the name of William, issued writs requiring the tion to those printed in the edition of 1726. The several counties to send representatives to New York. Bradford editions of a date later than 1710 are not For want of legal authority the Leisler delegates may trustworthy guides to the Assembly laws. hardly be considered an Assembly of the Province. The Assembly, having in several former sessions, as
From 1691 until 1716 new assemblies were elected well as in that held in 1741, observed, "how incorrectly every two years. The Assembly chosen in 1716 con- the laws were printed and the irregular manner in which tinued over ten years, but from 1726 until 1737 there they were bound up' were of the opinion that a new rewere four assemblies elected. An act was passed in vision was necessary. (Assem. Jour., 13th Nov., 1741.) 1737 providing for triennial elections, but it was re- Daniel Horsmanden, who afterward became chief juspealed by the King. In December, 1743, another act tice of the Supreme Court, was thereupon designated was passed limiting an Assembly to seven years, unless the reviser, but he never proceeded under the act. (2 previously prorogued. After an existence of ninety- Smith's History N. Y. 67.) In 1750 another act "to retwo years the provincial legislative assembly ad. vise, digest, and print the laws of the Colony," was journed to the 3d of April, 1775, and was never again passed (1 L. & S., p. 443); it recites, that the laws of convened. A continuous journal of both the upper New York had from time to time been very incorrectly and lower houses have been published at a large out- printed and irregularly bound up. William Smith, lay by the public authorities.
Jr., and William Livingston were appointed revisers In view of the fact that many editions of the by this act, and were directed to begin with the laws New Yor provincial laws have now become rare enacted by the Assembly held in 1691. Smith and even among bibliomanists, an account of the vari- Livingston’s revision, though it is generally esteemed ous imprints may be of some use to those who complete, contained none of the acts of the Ashave given the subject little or no attention. The semblies of 1683-4 and '05. The revisors, indeed, in statutes enacted by provincial authority prior to the the introduction to the first volume, announce that year 1091 have been already noticed. (Vol. 21 L. J., p. they omitted also many later acts which they were 208.) The first domestic imprint of the Assembly laws unable to find after diligent search. They censure the is known as Bradford's edition of 1694, and it contains later Bradford editions for containing “acts which the acts promulgated between the years 1691-4. This have been practised upon that were never passed by volume, highly prized by collectors, was unquestion- the whole Legislature," and for omitting others which ably the first book printed in New York; * but few were duly enacted. The first volume of Livingston & copies of it are extant and these fetch extremely high Smith's revision was published in 1752; the second, prices on the rare occasions of a sale. One copy of the containing tho later acts and a complete index, in 1702. 1694 edition is in the Lenox collection; another, the The revisors proceeded upon the plan originally reVan Schaak copy, the property of Mr. A. J. Vander- ported by Mr. Horsmanden. (Assembly Journal, poel, of New York, is perhaps the most perfect Nov. 13, 1741.) in existence. Imperfect copies are possessed by the In 1753 Governor Clinton, by instructions from the Society Library and the Secretary of State at Albany. lords justices of England, recommended a codification A reputed perfect specimen was lately sold at the of the New York laws, which was, on the first of June Brinley sale, to the New York State Library for of that year, declined by the Assembly on account of $1,600.
the very considerable expense lately incurred in the Shortly after Bradford's appointment as King's revision of Smith and Livingston. (Assembly Journal, printer in New York, he seems to have begun print- May 30 and June 1, 1753.) ing the acts of Assembly, session by session, but he The last revision of the laws of the Province was preserved a continuous pagination. From time to time undertaken by Peter Van Schaak, pursuant to an act he struck off title pages, and doubtless issued bound of Assembly passed in 1772. (Chap. 1543 Van Schaak's volumes of the laws. Iu many cases the title pages are Laws, p. 676.) It contains, in addition to the laws in
cluded in Smith & Livingston's Revision, the acts
passed between 1753 and the 8th of March (13 Geo. 3), * The first printing press in New York was set up by Wil
1773. The remaining acts of the Assembly, passed in liam Bradford in 1693. The 1694 edition of the New York laws was its first regular work. Bradford received his first
1774 and 1775, wero published in one volume by the warrant as King's printer in 1693, and it was probably for
public printer, Hugh Gaines. In addition to the varithe major part of the 1694 edition. Wallace's Com. Address
ous imprints already mentioned there is a London on the 20th Birthday of Bradford, p. 63; Vol. I Thomas's edition of those New York laws enacted between the History of Printing in America, p. 291.
year 1691 and 1718. It is known as the Baskett edia