ened by all the curative virtues of a verdict, and when they are aided by the presumptions which are rightfully to be inferred by this court in favor of the correctness of the rulings and decisions of the trial court. It has been held | in a number of cases that, when the sufficiency of a complaint is challenged for the first time by an assignment of error in the appellate court, many omitted facts will be deemed to have been supplied by the evidence, and the complaint held to be sufficient.

Missouri does not put a correct estimate on dancing, when it holds that it is libellous to accuse an institution of learning, in print, of teaching the art of dancing. This is what that learned court has done in the case of St. James Military Academy v. Gaiser, 28 S. W. Rep. 851. It seems that a number of clergymen of Macon, Missouri, assembled themselves together and resolved that the academy in question, because it 'fostered the practice of dancing, which is antagonistic to the teaching of our churches Expressly stating that it is unwilling to say and homes,' and' hurtful to the moral and that the doctrine of intendment after verdict spiritual well-being of all engaging in it,' and should be carried to the extent of holding that because the academy obstinately refused to disany material fact omitted from a complaint will continue it, although thereunto requested by be assumed to have been supplied by the evi- said clergymen, was 'harmful to the moral and dence, the court distinctly affirms that a com- religious interests of our community,' and that plaint which is insufficient to withstand a de- they recommended 'the members of our murrer, because of a defective or imperfect churches and all friends of religion and good averment, only, of a fact, will be cured by a morals that they absent themselves from and verdict upon the assumption that every fact discourage and discountenance in every way alleged in a complaint, and such other facts, all receptions and other gatherings at the acadnot alleged, but which are naturally to be in-emy as long as dancing is allowed in the buildferred from those alleged, being the basis for ing. The court holds that this publication the introduction of evidence, have been proven. constituted a cause of action for libel, but The particular thing which is presumed to have leave it to a jury to say whether it was justified been proved must always be such as can be on the ground that dancing was immoral. implied from the allegations on the record by a seems to us that the charge is not libellous, fair and reasonable intendment. But where a

material fact is lacking the pleading is not cured

by the verdict.

"A complaint is vulnerable to attack, because fatally defective, when a fact necessary to the statement of a cause of action is missing there

from. There must be a sufficient complaint, or there is no foundation for a judgment; and where there is a necessary fact lacking, it is incurably bad, and a verdict will not cure it Indefiniteness and uncertainty in a complaint, however, are not cause for demurrer, hence it follows that that question cannot well be urged in testing the sufficiency of a complaint when first challenged by an assignment of error in the appellate court. The usual remedy for indefiniteness and uncertainty is by a motion to make more specific."

It

because it does not accuse the academy of promoting anything immoral. Would it be libellous, for example, for the proprietors of the academy to publish that the churches presided over by these clergymen should be avoided, so long as the clergy thereof combed their hair behind their ears and sang through their noses? Or suppose the clergy had denounced the academicians for teaching the lascivious angles of geometry, or unfolding the unholy mysteries of algebra, or encouraging the contemplation of the deleterious principles of geology, would that have been libellous ? Is not the one charge as ridiculous and manifestly baseless as the other? To justify the court's decision it must be conceded that to accuse an academy of teaching or permitting dancing has the natural tendency to bring it into odium, unpopularity or contempt. This can hardly be true. The world has moved considerably since 'The Waltz' was so vehemently denounced by the pious and saintly Lord Byron. It is now recalled that David danced before the Lord, that

1

Hatton danced himself into the Lord Chan-
cellorship before Queen Elizabeth, and that
dancing is taught at the government's expense,
or at all events publicly favored, at West Point."

were constitutional, Reed promptly said "yes," the other with equal readiness said "no." The judge admitted both to practice without further questioning, saying that two young men who could answer offhand a question of such im

The Daily Review, in an article on Legal portance, before the Supreme Court of the
Education, says:
United States had decided it, were qualified to
practice.

"At a period not very far distant the office system of instruction was practically the only method by which the candidate for admission to the bar could obtain the necessary preliminary education; but the introduction of modern business methods into the law office and the general employment of stenographers and typewriters have relegated the student to the background. In the busy office he no longer has the advantage of intimate intercourse with his preceptor and familiar knowledge of the routine of business whereby he was once able to acquire a thorough training in the practice and principles of the law. He is either a mere clerk with little leisure for study or else he is simply tolerated as an inmate of the office, browsing among the books and picking up the work in a desultory and unsystematic way.

The path to admission is no longer so short and easy as that travelled by Reed and his friend. The boy who has no college diploma must pass a regent's examination in English. composition, advanced English, first year Latin, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, United States and English history, civics and economics, or their substantial equivalents, then he must devote three years to the study of the law before he can present himself before the State Board of Law Examiners for examination.

The rapid growth of law schools, both in number and size of classes, only keeps pace with the demand for adequate legal education. Connected, as many of them are, with great universities they afford an opportunity for some general culture as well as the technical training The scope of modern practice has broadened of the professional school. Two years of unso wonderfully that the narrow range of the old disturbed study under the guidance of a corps system is no longer adequate. Commercial of professors having no other duty than the enterprise, the multiplication of corporations, instruction of their students should be the the varied investments of capital have devel-equivalent of twice that time spent in a busy oped a new school of lawyers who rarely appear law office without direction and amid constant in court, but by their skillful management of interruptions. vast business interests command the largest retainers, and an enviable position in the community. Such practitioners have no use for the student in their offices and no time to train the novice. Again in New York State at least the continued elevation of requirements for admission to practice make more irksome the solitary work of the student."

Only four States, Delaware, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania require any standard of general education and in twenty-five of the States there are no preliminary requirements for admission except a good moral character.

It is said that Hon. Thomas B. Reed and another presented themselves for examination before a judge in San Francisco at the time when the legal ender acts of Congress were assailed as unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court had not yet passed upon them. Asked if such laws

Office experience is of course indispensible to the practical knowledge of the law, but it can no longer be considered the adequate and complete method of legal education which it was under former conditions.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey say in the case of Arnoult v. Arnoult, 31 Atl. Rep. 606, that the existence of influence which arises from unlawful or immoral relations, operating on a testator when his will is made, does not raise a presumption against the instrument, but will be regarded as a significant fact, which calls for a close and suspicious scrutiny. The law permits a man to leave all his property, which he may by will dispose of, to his mistress, and to ignore his wife, if he does so with free, sound and disposing mind, pursuant to the formalities which the law describes.

I send you the report of this case, thinking you would like to lay it before the readers of the JOURNAL. Concerning the case I beg only to observe that the substantive rights affirmed in the first and second of the above propositions must be the same in the United States as in England. It would be an outrage on the fundamental and primordial rights don District Committee's Department, 85 Weedingof persons if such a course as was pursued by the ton road, Kentish-town, N. W., Jan. 4, 1893: defendant towards the plaintiffs could be pursued DEAR SIRS. I am instructed by the above with impunity. As to the third proposition, the committee to ask whether it is with your knowledge granting of an injunction in the same action which and consent that the sub-contractor, S. Wright, who established the right of the plaintiffs to damages, I is executing work for your firm in St. Paul's churchmay observe that it is a needful remedy and one yard, is employing men other than plasterers to do broader perhaps than would be afforded in many of plasterer's work; and I am further instructed to the States of the United States, even in those that inform you that the said S. Wright, owing to have Codes of Procedure. It rests upon the provi- | his previous action, has been declared by the

ter.

above committee, and endorsed by the whole of
the members, to be an unfair employer. The plas-
terers' work referred to is the fixing of fibrous plas-
I enclose copy of working rules and by-laws
for your perusal. No. 3 of the latter relates to this
matter, in which you will see that it is impossible
for any plasterer to finish the work now being fixed.
Committee instruct me to inform you that un-

less Mr. Wright is removed they will be reluctantly

compelled to take steps to prevent the men from
finishing the work. We shall esteem it a favor if
you please reply at your earliest convenience.
Sir, on behalf of the committee, yours obedi-

ently,

D. HENNESSEY,

Organizing Secretary.

Messrs. Patman & Fotheringham."

The object was to boycott Mr. Wright. Messrs. Patman & Fotheringham refused to give way and to dismiss the plaintiffs, but endeavored to bring about a reconciliation. In June, 1893, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with Messrs. Watkins & Company to supply and fix certain fibrous plaster work at South Kensington. Thereupon, a deputation headed by the defendant waited upon them, and the result was that Messrs. Watkins were compelled to discharge the plaintiffs. In 1894, the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the School Board for London to do certain plastering work, and on February 2, the defendant wrote the following letter to Mr. Perry, the assistant architect of

the School Board:

"National Association of Operative Plasterers, &c.,
February 2, 1894. Gravel-lane:

DEAR SIR — I am sorry to have to again trouble
you in reference to the question of sub-contracting,
but seeing upon the schools in Gravel-lane, Hounds-
ditch, there are men employed by Mr. Wright, a
sub-contractor, of Hackney, to do plasterers' work.
I might further state that these men are not plaster-
ers at all. I must remind you that this is not the
first time I have been compelled to draw your at-
tention to this said sub-contractor, and if this man
is permitted to do this work, nothing but scamped
work and inferior workmanship will be the result;
also a great injustice will be done to the organized
plasterers of London, whose rules will not permit
them to work for sub-contractors upon the board's
works. Trusting you will give this your early at-
tention, and thanking you in anticipation for an
early and favorable reply,

In May the plaintiffs entered into a contract with Messrs. Sage & Co., and on May 16 the following was sent by the defendant to them: "National Association of Operative Plasterers, etc. From George Cole, District Secretary, David Hennessey, Organizer, May 16, 1894.

DEAR SIRS -I write you in reference to the following upon the works of Messrs. Colls, situated at Ryelane, Peckham, Messrs. Jones and Higgins' premises. Your firm are doing some fibrous ceilings, and as the man to whom you intrusted this work is known as an unfair employer, we have to inform you that the members of this association are not permitted to work upon the same works as them, and as we have several members.engaged upon the above works the presence of these men is causing considerable friction. We therefore have to ask you for your intervention by getting these men removed, and thus prevent any trouble arising upon the above works. Thanking you for a reply by return of post.

I remain yours faithfully,

D. HENNESSEY.

To Messrs. Sage & Co., Gray's-inn-road."

In July, 1894, the plaintiffs contracted with Mr. Roome to supply and fix certain fibrous plaster cornices, when on the 19th of that month the defendant induced Roome to break his contract with the plaintiffs and to refuse to allow them to proceed with the work. In the months of September and October, 1894, the plaintiffs contracted with Messrs. Colls & Sons to do certain plastering work at the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, under the supervision of the architect, Mr. Runtz. Thereupon the defendant on October 1 sent the following letter to Messrs. Colls & Sons:

"National Association of Operative Plasterers. London
District Committee. From George Cole, District
Secretary, Daniel Hennessey, Organizing Secretary,
Club Union-buildings, Clerkenwell, E. C.:

DEAR SIRS

October 1, 1894.

It is with much regret that I have to approach your firm again, but upon your work at the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, there has been introduced Mr. Wright and his men, and, as you, Sir. are aware, for some time past this man's opposition to the organized plasterers of London have caused a revulsion of feeling throughout London, and no man worthy of the name will work for or on any works where he is employed. It does appear somewhat strange that your firm should be so persistent in introducing this man. We have done all that lays in our power to prevent friction with your To Mr. Perry, Architect to the London School firm, and do hope that you will not allow the present Board." good feeling to be strained. Should Mr. Wright,

I remain yours faithfully,

D. HENNESSEY, Org. Sec. N. A. O. P.
P. S.-There is no specialty in this work, and Mr.
Grover of Islington, is the builder.

and his men be allowed to remain on the works, we cannot be held responsible for what may occur. Trusting you will in the interest of all concerned give this matter your consideration. It cannot be that this man has good or efficient men, for such will not go near him. Again expressing regret for having to trouble you, and thanking you in anticipation for a favorable reply,

I remain, yours faithfully,

D. HENNESSEY.

To Messrs. Colls & Sons, Contractors."
In that letter the motive of the defendant was

cynically avowed. Messrs. Colls, however, bravely
refused to cancel the contract; the result was that
a strike ensued and ultimately Messrs. Colls were
compelled to throw Messrs. Wright over. If such
a state of things were allowed to continue, Mr.
Wright would be a ruined man, as it would be quite
impossible for him to continue to carry on his busi-

ness.

Mr. Charles Watkins, surveyor and estate manager, was then called and examined by Mr. Chitty, and said,-In June, 1893, I instructed the plaintiff's to do work at 1, Bottesmore-gardens, South-Kensington. The work was started, when I received an intimation from Doyley and Co. I wrote that the plasterers must leave. In September, defendant and others called at my office. He said unless I fell into line with other builders they would be obliged to call out the union men. The defendant called again on the following Saturday. I went to the works and found the men on strike. I saw the defendant and others. I wrote to Wright's men, saying, I could not allow Wright to finish the work. Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg.-There was no dispute about the men's wages being kept back. am not a member of the Association of Master Builders. I cannot say I knew that the invariable rule is to pay the men up to Friday night. We paid up till Thursday night.

I

said that Mr. Wright's men did their work well and he did not find that good men would not go near Wright's men.

On cross-examination the witness said that the contract with Wright had to be broken, because all the union men were withdrawn, and Runtz, the architect, was anxious that the work should go on. He (the witness) refused to enter into a conspiracy to ruin Wright.

Mr. Collins, manager for Messrs. Colls & Sons, examined by Mr. Chitty, said, I was manager on the job at the Pavilion Theatre. On October 17, the men were called out, and on October 18, Mr. Wright's men were also called out. I saw Mr. Hennessey on the 19th, and Hennessey asked whether Wright would come back again. I said "No." Wright's work had always given us satisfaction. our contract with Wright.

We broke

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg.-We broke our contract with Wright on October 19. Mr. Verdon represented all the trades. The men themselves do not refuse to work with Wright's men. Our idea is that it is due to Mr. Hennessey's action. Directly the men were assured by us that Wright's men would not come back, they returned to work.

Mr. E. A. Runtz, an architect, carrying on business in Moorgate-street, examined by Mr. Chitty, said, --I was architect to the Pavilion Theatre. Mileend. On October 18, I had to tell Wright's men to go off the job as the other men would not go on while they were there.

i

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. - Wright's men were doing their work extremely well, and behaved very well.

Mr. Beazley, a process server, said that on October 19, about 9.20 a. m., he served Mr. Hennessey with an injunction restraining him from inducing Messrs. Colls & Sons to break their contract with the plaintiffs.

Mr. H. R. Perry, assistant architect for the school board for London, said: While Wright was doing the work at Gravel lane, Houndsditch, I received the letter of February 2, 1894. Wright's men were doing the work very well. At Greenwich I found that instead of nine screws to a slab, which I always

putting in six. I have examined five schools done by Wright, and the ceilings are satisfactory, showing the work must have been well done.

James Marcham, examined by Mr. J. W. Chitty, said, I was fixing work for Wright & Co. in January, 1893. The defendant told me they were determined to smash Mr. Wright if it cost them £6,000, and that they had got that amount in hand. Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg.-Wright paid the insist on for school board work, Wright's men were same as other men. Mine was piece-work. Re-examined.--I was content with my wages as lather and to work for Wright and put up plaster. Mr. Peter, foreman to Patman and Fotheringham, said that the defendent told him the plaitiffs' men were scamping their work by not fixing the slabs with screws. His objection was unfounded. Mr. J. H. Colls, builder of Coleman-street, who was employed at the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, and whose firm Messrs. Colls & Sons, entered into a contract with the plaintiff firm for the plastering there, I

Mr. Yates, a clerk to Messrs. Sage, of Gray's Inn lane, said he received letters from Hennessey. Mr. Samuel Wright, managing partner of the plaintiff firm, said he estimated his loss at some thousands of pounds. His business had fallen off over fifty per cent. since January.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. Over these particular cases I have lost £85 4s. 3d., which, together