« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Mills W. Barse and others, respondents, and Same, the many virtues and excellencies of the departed. appellauts, V. John I. MoKinney, and others. — American Digest. Judgments affirmed with costs-In re Judicial settle
MODESTY.-."Modesty is a quality which highly ments of accounts of Lawson A. Long, eto.-Judg
adorns a woman." We learned this in our copy-book ment affirmed with costs-Marrion 8. Robinson, re
days, but we never knew how gracefully it bedecked spondent, v. Andrew H. Frank, appellant. — Judg.
an editor until we read the subjoined paragraph from ment affirmed with costs-James F. Brooks, respond
the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL of the 5th inst.: “Mr. ent, v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway
Charles C. Soule, the well-known law-book publisher Company, appellant. — Judgment reversed, new trial
of Boston, whose shop bas the odor of sauctity belonggranted, costs to abide event-Alfred Rose and an
ing to the late Freeman Street Chapel, has issued a other, respondents, v. Caroline A. Strong and others.
catalogue of his publications, with portraits of the Judgment modified as stated in the opinion, with
authors, including Messrs. Wood, Schouler, Stimson, out costs-Lawrence J. Callahan and others, respond
Chamberlayne, B. V. Abbott, Ewell, Jones, Sheldon, ents, v. George F. Gilman, appellant. Order af- Indermaur, Cohen, Henry Austin, and another - 8 firmed, and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff,
fine array of intellectual beauty, excepting that other." with costs in all courts-Joseph H. Bushby, respond
We only know “that other" in the spirit, but from ent, v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway
that knowledge have no doubt that those who know Company, appellant.-Judgment affirmed with costs
him in the flesh will assign to him as his proper place -George Streat, appellant, v. Henry Victor Roths
in Mr. Soule's galaxy of worthies the position facile child and others, respondents. Judgments of Gen
princeps, or at the very least, of primus inter pares.eral Term and Circuit reversed, new trial grauted, Central Law Journal.. costs to abide event-Luella S. Root, respondent, v. Harriet E. Wadhams, appellant. — Judgment af
The ALBANY LAW JOURNAL of the 19th has a well firmed with costs, and judgment absolute against ap
considered article on that vexed question, when and pellant ordered in the stipulation-John Ollson, re
how far a judgment against the principal debtor binds spondent, v. Thomas Walsh and another, appellants.
his surety. The writer protests against the admission -Judgment affirmed with costs-American Ex
of it in evidence in any case except, as we understand change in Europe, appellant, v. William H. Robertson,
him, unless (1) the surety is really an indemnitor, or a collector, respondent. — Judgment affirmed with
(2) the judgment is in the nature of a confession or costs—Stephen Sweet, as survivor, eto., respondent, v.
admission, and the principal is dead, and the circumAlex. Taylor, appellant.- Judgment reversed, new
stances are such that the judgment can be admitted trial granted, costs to abide event-Mary C. Fargis,
under the familiar rule as to admissions against appellant, v. William T. Walton, respondent. —
interest, or (3) the surety expressly or by implication, Judgment affirmed with costs-Julius Cutler, Jr., and
agreed to abide the event of a suit against the princiothers, appellants, v. George F. Victor and others, re
pal. It should not be forgotten that there is a class spondents. Judgment affirmed with costs-John
of cases in which the very object of requiring a surety Consalus, respondent, v. Isaac McConihe and others,
is to give assurance that the supposed debtor will not appellants. — Judgment affirmed with costs—Isaac
take advantage of some personal defense, as alleged McConihe, respondent, v. Francis A. Fales and others,
ground of exoneration. Covenants in such cases appellants. - Judgment reversed, uew trial granted,
| should be so drawn as to make the intent clear.-N. costs to abide event-Joseph M. Berry and others, re
Y. Daily Register. spoudents, v. Andrew Brown, appellant.-Judgment The following, which we find in the ALBANY LAW
with costs-Louis J. Simonie, respondent, v. JOURNAL of Nov. 5, contains so much of truth, and is New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway Com so well said in short, pithy sentences, sparkling all pany, appellant.-Judgment affirmed with costs through with evidence of the earnestness and conMerchants' Loan and Trust Company, appellant, v. viction of the writer, that we cannot resist the inHenry Clair, respondent.-Judgment affirmed with pulse to publish it. It will certainly interest our readcosts-Henry (. Dart, respondent, v. William E. Laim ers, very few of whom, we venture to say, have a beer, appellant. — Judginent and conviction of mur friendly interest in the “Personal Liberty” moveder in the first degree affirmed-People, respondent, | ment, and it should interest every sympathizer with v. Daniel Driscoll, appellant. — Judgment affirmed that movement to know what a conservative law with costs-Aunie Grapp, respondent, v. New York journal of national repute has to say regarding the Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, appel movement.–Marshall (Mich.) Stateman. lant.-Judgment affirmed with costs-John N.Granville, respondent, v. New York Central and Hudson
“The custom of advocates to render their services River Railroad Company, appellant.
quiddam honorarium does not exist in this country. We doubt very much if counsel for appellant, who discourse with such evident admiration upon this
practice as it existed centuries ago in Rome, in France, NOTES.
and in England, would be willing to see it established
in Colorado. The advocate or counselor who should By the way, it is a curious fact, that with the single here to-day imitate Cicero, and give his services gratuiexception of the New Jersey Law Journal none of the tously, relying solely upon the gift which, in the lanenterprising gatherers and distributers of legal news guage of Sir John Davy, 'guieth honor as well to the seem to have heard of the discontinuance of the taken as the guier,' would 800n find the wolf at his Eastern Reporter. The American Law Review still in-door, unless, like Cicero, he had other sources of cludes the Eastern in its list of legal periodicals. Even revenue. It may. from counsel's standpoint, be 2 the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL has made no allusion to humiliating fact, but it is a fact nevertheless, that in the untimely decease of its neighbor, although we be this respect the legal profession occupies the status lieve it was published at the same office. Common with us of other employment followed for a livelihood. decenoy it would seem, with a proper regard for the The attorney is considered worthy of his bire, and is opinions of mankind, would have required the bril- | not in danger of disbarment if he contract in advance liant editor of the ALBANY to drop a publio tear in the for his fees, and collect them by suit, when necessary, premises, and we should have expected an epigram- after the service is rendered." Helm, J., in Fillmore matio obituary with the glowing panegyric depicting | v. Wells, Colo. Sup. Ct., Oct. 18, 1887.
The Albany Law Journal.
sure that is so, if there was legal evidence upon which to convict him; surely not otherwise. You cannot convict a man of bribe-giving upon a mere allega
tion in an indictment. You must prove him guilty ALBANY, DECEMBER 10, 1887.
by competent evidence. You may not compel him
to testify against himself, - the same Constitution CURRENT TOPICS.
provides that: “ liable to punishment” does not
mean punishment without coinpetent or upon inHERE is "swearing at the tavern.” The “lay
competent evidence. Then section 79 of the Penal
Code came in and provided that the bribe-giver 1 mind” is disturbed, and the “learned jurist”
upon a prosecution or investigation might be comof the newspaper is muddled by the Sharp decision. The “ learned jurist” of the Tribune has stubbed
pelled to testify against the bribe-taker, but that his his mental toes over a mare's nest, and makes &
testimony must not be used in any prosecution or two-column present of it to that newspaper.
investigation against him. And the court decided It is a
that Sharp's testimony before the legislative compity that he hides under the signature of “E. B.
mittee was compulsorily procured upon such an R.," because we do not know any “learned jurist ”.
" investigation,” and therefore could not be used of those initials, and it would be a great boon to us and to the profession to know who he is, so that
against him on his trial. In a word: Sharp was
himself “liable to punishment,” unless he had we could "put him on the list " for an appointment
turned State's evidence against the others, provided to the bench — unless he is already there. We hope
you could prove that he had offered the bribe, and he is not merely some sore-headed gentleman who |
you could not prove this by his own extorted testihas lost a case in the Court of Appeals, or lost money on Mr. Nicoll's non-election. This learned
mony. Any thing very mysterious about this? But
“E. B. R.” complains that the court did not pay pundit obligingly informs us what the law is and is
any attention in the opinions to this argument. We not, and indulges in many keen sarcasms and
have not seen the opinions, but granting the cormuch pointed ridicule at the expense of those un
rectness of this assertion, we do not wonder that learned persons who constitute the Court of Appeals.
they passed by so baseless and trifling an argument, It is probably not worth while to notice these, be
and devoted themselves to those of serious weight. cause the chances are that one of these days having
| We recollect that Mr. Nicoll made some parade of waked up to the consciousness that he has made
this argument, but if we recollect right, the point himself an object of derision like the late irascible
had not been pressed below. The only question was and half-cocked Mr. O'Conor, he will, like that dis
the meaning of the word "sinvestigation.” The tinguished gentleman, don the sackcloth of repent
court held that the proceeding before the legislative ance and invite these same judicial rascals to dinner,
committee was a "judicial investigation," and that that is, always provided he has money enough left
was the end of the case — the admission of Sharp's from election to square the bills. We will now
testimony before it was error. After this “E. B. seriously proceed briefly to take the conceit out of
R." becomes so devious and “erratic” that we canElaborately Blundering Recalcitrant, if that is his,
not follow him. His expressions are of a wandername, and make the Tribune ashamed of its editorial
ing class, as Mrs. Lirriper would say. He argues hullaballoo. We shall not waste much time upon
that if all the “ Broadway grabbers” had marched the Tweed decision. “E. B. R." evidently does not
before the committee “and sworn to the giving of a understand what that decision was, for he says it
bribe which had been accepted,” they would all was “that a man who has been charged with sev
have gone scot free! Now this passes legal comeral crimes in several counts of an indictment
I prehension. There never has been any claim that should ” “not be punished for each crime of
Sharp's evidence before the committee cleared him. which he was adjudged guilty," and contends
That was not the point. The point was that it that such a decision was wrong! According to this learned gentleman's misstatement of the case,
could not be used against him. If you cou'd not cona man could be lawfully punished for mur
vict him without it, why he simply could not prac
tically be punished, although he was "liable to der, rape, arson, bigamy and a misdemeanor all
punishment” on proper conviction. No, no, “E. under one indictment! And he calls this a “just
B. R.” you are all wrong -- crazy, so to speak. and common-sense proposition!” Until this learned
Better think it over, apply cooling lotions to your person can exercise self-control enough to say what
heated brow, take it all back, and invite the judges he means, and exhibit knowledge enough to fit out
to dinner. Of course they will not accept, but it a six months' law-student, we shall not waste any
will exhibit a grain of common sense and legal sense powder against his criticism of the Tweed decision.
on your part, and convince the bar that if you are a But now to the case in hand. “E. B. R." cites the
donkey, you are a good-natured one. constitutional amendment of 1874, which enacts in substance that any successful bribe-giver shall be "liable to punishment" for felony, unless he turns We publish with pleasure a communication from State's evidence on a prosecution of the taker, and so influential, experienced and progressive a lawyer argues that consequently Sharp must have been as Mr. Milburn, on the remedy for the block in convicted unless he turned State's evidence. To be our Court of Appeals, although we cannot wholly
VOL. 36 - No. 21.
agree with him. On the first point — recommenda- British spy, and received a letter from the British tion to cut off appeals from certain orders—we readily commander threatening that if the spy were exefall into line with him. But we have been known cuted he would retaliate on American prisoners in of old to be strenuously opposed to limiting ap- his hands. To which Putnam replied: “So-and-so peals. It is superfluous to repeat the arguments has been apprehended as a spy, tried as a spy, conagainst it. We content ourselves with saying now victed as a spy, and will be hanged as a spy. P. S. that the people have a right to indulge in litigation, He has been executed accordingly." We did not and to provide for its dispatch, and having done know that the Legal Adviser had any “views” except so, to avail themselves of all the means and reme- advertisements. It is noteworthy, also, that so far as dies provided. The problem how to dispatch legal we have observed the Chicago Legal Journal has not business is not solved by recipes how not to do it. / had a word to say on this subject. We are informed If a physician is crowded with patients be does not by a prominent Chicago lawyer that all the “panic" kill some of them off to make things easy. existed outside of Chicago, and was probably news. Seriously objectionable also is Mr. Milburn's recom- paper stock in trade. mendation to allow the chief judge to summon up Supreme Court judges now and then, in his discre There is considerable interest in the“ Report of the tion, to put their shoulders to the wheel. We want Seventh Annual Meeting of the Missouri Bar Assono such thing. The sitting of the Supreme Court | ciation," in July last. A paper on the Relation of judges by turn in the Court of Appeals was one of Attorney and client — well worn topic - by Hon. the worst features of the old system, and was abol
John W. Henry, is very readable. It contains a ished by the new Constitution. To allow the chief great deal of plain and sensible talk. The essayist judge to accomplish the same thing at intervals at denounces the extravagance and pomp of modern his pleasure would be worse. The people are en religion, the precociousness of modern children, titled to have a uniform and known court, selected the imperfect education of men for professions. for this particular station, fitted for it by training Was he not a little satirical when he said: “The and experience, continually removed from local and model husband, - but you know what that is. popular influences. The suitor has the right to Each of you married men can see one by looking know beforehand who his judges are to be. But into his mirror. He is not a member of a club, worst of all is Mr. Milburn's suggestion to allow does not spend his evenings from home, at a appeals in cases involving less than one thousand meeting of some secret society or convivial club, dollars, only at the discretion of the General Term. has a higher regard for his own wife than for any No court can safely be trusted with such a discretion. other woman, and prefers her company to that of There are many complaints against the existing ex- the wife of some other men. The model wife, ercise of it. Does anybody suppose, for example, but each of you married men has one at home." It that the General Term of the First Department is interesting to learn that Mr. Justice Miller was would have allowed Jacob Sharp to appeal if his originally a physician. We agree with the learned right had depended on their will? So in civil cases
writer in the following: “For the young lawyer there must frequently be a bias and a conceit, un- , there is no more direct road to perdition than conscious, perhaps, which would deny suitors just that travelled by the politician. Leave politics to privileges. It is not for the courts to say whether | men advanced in years, but as for yourselves shun the suitor shall or shall not have the privilege of it as you would a pestilence, for all along the highlitigation. The simple — the only — remedy for way of political life, at every step, are devil's stathe grievance in question is to supply judges enough tions to drag you down to hell.” And we commend to sit all the time, and let them take turns as they this to certain young lawyers of this city, whose do in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsyl | mouths are just now full of the ashes of the apples vania, Ohio and other States. Security may be of Sodom. The annual address by Prof. C. G. exacted on stay of execution, and penalties imposed Tiedeman, author of a very interesting work on the for frivolous appeals.
Police Power of the government, was entitled “The
Doctrine of Natural Rights in its bearing upon The Open Court says: “The ALBANY LAW American Constitutional Law.” Two debates close JOURNAL reprints our editorial on “Anarchy and the the proceedings: “Is it advisable to abolish the Anarchists,' and calls it a 'very moderate article, well disabilities of coverture of married women in this and discreetly written,' but it seems to have had | State?" the affirmative sustained by Mr. E. S. but little or no effect on our legal contemporary, Scarvitt, the negative by Mr. J. A. Harrison; and who thinks hanging is 'the best use to make of such “Is it advisable to abolish the elective and substiassassins and dastards.' But the Legal Adviser, of | tute the appointive system of selecting the judiis city, has sounder and more humane views on ciary?” the negative sustained by Mr. N. M. subject.” Our go-as-you please contemporary's Givan, the affirmative not given. There was one ? " seems to have little or no effect " on the gov peculiar resolution adopted, namely, that each t, unless it may have been influential in pro member of the association be permitted to bring a nercy for the worst of the assassins. This lady to the “banquet.” This is commendable, and fter the event reminds us of Gen. Israel if generally adopted would result in a moderation ho in the revolutionary war caught a l of imbibing and utterance.
NOTES OF CASES.
pable of committing the crime of rape has no appli
cation in Louisiana. The court said: “In his TN Bennett v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, Oct. refusal to give the charged asked by defendant, the I 22. 1887. it was held that though the pardon of judge is sustained by the authority of the courts of one convicted of felony will in general restore his
Massachusetts, New York and Ohio. Com. v. competency as a witness, yet the conviction may
Green, 2 Pick. 380; People v. Randolph, 2 Parker, still be used to affect his credit. The court said:
174; Williams v. State, 14 Ohio, 222; O'Meara v. “With regard to the general effect of a pardon, the
State, 17 id. 515; Moore v. State, id. 521. It is adaccepted doctrine is that a full pardon absolves the
mitted that the charge asked embodied the rule party from all legal consequences of his crime. It
adopted by the common law of England, but the makes the offender a new man. It blots out his
American decisions above referred to held that the offense, and gives him a new credit and capacity;
rule was based upon the physiological fact that in the and even so far extinguishes his guilt as that, in
climate and among the population of England and the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if
the other northern countries of Europe puberty was he had never committed the offense. Hunnicutt v.
so rarely attained under the age of fourteen in males State, 18 Tex. App. 499; Carr v. State, 19 id. 635,
as to justify the presumption that prior to that age and authorities collated and cited. Notwithstand
a boy is incapable, and hence cannot be convicted, ing this comprehensive doctrine, it seems equally
of rape. But recognizing that the period of puberty well settled that, whenever the pardoned convict is
is affected by circumstances of race, climate, habits presented as a witness, the judgment of his convic
and conditions of life, and discovering as a fact tion may be put in evidence against him. Mr.
that in this country puberty is frequently attained Wharton says: “But a pardon does not preclude
| at an earlier age than fourteen, they refused to such conviction from being put in evidence,' and
apply the English rule; holding that the rule, bein support of his text he cites in the note a long
ing founded wholly upon the facts prevailing in array of authorities of the highest standing, (Whart.
England, had no application to the different facts Crim. Ev. 8th Ed., $ 489), taken from the opinion
existing in this country. The reasoning applies in Curtis v. Cochrane, 50 N. H. 244. In that opin
with much greater force to the climatic and racial ion it is said: “A pardon is not presumed to be
conditions of Louisiana. These authorities fully granted on the ground of innocence or total refor
sustain the refusal of the judge to apply the Enmation, (citing authorities.) It removes the disa
| glish rule, and we have no hesitation in following bility, but does not change the common-law prin
them. * * * The Ohio court said: 'In our ciple that the conviction of an infamous offense is
State we know that many infants under fourteen evidence of bad character for truth. The general
il are capable of being guilty, but that a majority are character for truth, bad enough to destroy his com
not capable under that age. Hence we are compentency as a witness, must be bad enough to affect
pelled to suit the rule of law to the facts, as the his credibility when liis competency is restored by
rule itself has no authority but in fact. Modified the executive or legislative branch of the govern
then to our circumstances and condition, the rule ment.: Mr. Greenleaf seems to think that a par- is: An infant under the age of fourteen is presumed doned felon who has served his full term in
to be incapable of committing rape, but that prethe penitentiary would be entitled to very little
sumption may be rebutted by proof. Williams v. credit.' 1 Greenl. Ev. (13 ed.) $ 377. Mr. Starkie
State, 14 Ohio, 222. Obviously, the modification says: 'And although a pardon cannot convert a
was based on the fact stated, that in Ohio the wicked man into an honest one, and confer credi- majority are not capable under that age,' which bility upon one who through the infamy of his supported the presumption of incapacity, but subconduct is not credible, yet such a pardon must be
ject to rebuttal. . Now, in Louisiana, we believe we presumed to have been conferred after inquiry, upon
hazard nothing in saying that a large majority of good and sufficient ground, on an object worthy of youths attain puberty before the age of fourteen the indulgence, and therefore worthy of being heard; years. Therefore ther
years. Therefore there is no foundat in for any but the degree of credit is still to be left to the jury.'.
presuinption of incapacity. It might be wise for Starkie Ev. (7th Am. Ed.) 99. It was held in Baum the legislature to establish some limit of age within v. Clause, 5 Hill, 196, that, though the pardon of which an irrebutable presumption of incapacity one convicted of felony will in general restore his might result; but it has not done so. It would not, competency as a witness, yet the conviction may
and could not with any reason, fix so high a limit still be used to affect his credit.' In the light of as fourteen years.” The doctrine of this case is these authorities, the action of the court in the
also held in Tennessee; Wagoner v. State, 5 Lea, premises complained of in the third bill of excep 352; 8. C., 40 Am. Rep. 36. tions was not erroneous.”
In Phillips v. Town of Willow, Wisconsin Supreme In State v. Jones, Louisiana Supreme Court, Oct. Court, Nov. 1, 1887, it was held that in an action 19, 1887, it was held that the conclusive presump-against a municipal corporation for damages for tion of the English common law that a male infant injuries sugtained by the plaintiff by reason of the under the age of fourteen years is physically mca- | overturning of his sleigh by a stone in the highway,
evidence that another sleigh had been upset, and a pened to them by driving against the stone. It is wagon nearly upset, by the same stone at the same apparent that if this testimony was relevant to time, is inadmissible to prove that the stone was a prove a defect, as was said in the Bloor case, it defect, and in the traveled part of the highway. would have been competent to show that these The court said: “The question is not entirely new persons were not driving carefully, or had skittish in this court. In Bloor v. Town of Delafield, 34 N. | teams; also that hundreds had passed over this W. Rep. 117, a kindred question was presented and highway in safety with carriages, notwithstanding considered. That was also an action for injuries the alleged defect. So issue after issue would be caused to the plaintiff by being thrown from his raised, and facts collateral to the issue made by the buggy, his horse being frightened by a mortar box pleadings would multiply; the main issue forming in the highway, while he was driving past it in the new ones, and the suit itself expanding like the banevening. Testimony was offered on the part of the yan tree of India, whose branches drop shoots to the town that many horses were driven past the mortar ground, which take root, and form new stocks, till box the day it was within the limits of the high- | the tree itself covers great space by its circumferway without being frightened. This testimony was ence. We think it a much safer rule to confine the objected to and excluded. This court approved evidence to the issue or real fact put in controversy the ruling of the trial court, and held the testimony by the pleadings, excluding all evidence which reinadmissible. Mr. Justice Lyon, in the opinion, lates to collateral matters.” See note, 44 am. Rep. says to hold such testimony admissible would be 694. to open the door to numerous and perplexing side issues, which is always to be avoided. Issues THOMAS ADDIS EMMET AND WILLIAM would be made, not raised by the pleadings and
PINKNEY. which presumably neither party would be prepared to try. It must be admitted that the cases THE CASE OF THE NEREIDE AND OTHER CASES-A are not in accord upon this question. In some it is
DRAMATIC SCENE IN COURT. held that the evidence of other accidents, or of the effect on carriages driven by other persons than the plaintiff over the same road, is competent, because
THOMAS ADDIS EMMET, distinguished alike in it has a tendency to show its fitness or unfitness for
T his native and in his adopted country as a lawyer,
orator, scholar and patriot, whose fame remains unpublic travel (Kent v. Town of Lincoln, 32 Vt. 591;
obscured by the advancing shadows of time, was born Quinlan v. City of Utica, 11 Hun, 217); or tends to at Cork, Ireland, August 24, 1764. prove that the object was or was not naturally cal He graduated at Trinity College in June, 1778, under culated to frighten horses (Darling v. Westmoreland,
circumstances exceedingly gratifying to his friends. 52 N. H. 401; House v. Metcalf, 27 Conn. 632); or to
At college young Emmet had the reputatiou of a
diligent student, with a quick, comprehensive mind, show knowledge on the part of the city that a
and rare powers of condensation, and crystallization bridge was not properly lighted so as to be safe to of thought. Thus mentally prepared he commenced persons crossing it (City of Chicago v. Powers, 42 the study of medicine. After a year's study with his Ill. 169); or to show the result of experience or father, an eminent physician and surgeon, young Emexperimental knowledge of the possibility of the
met was sent to Edinburgh Medical College, where he
completed his medical education. His mental atnegligent act relied on as causing the injury (Piggot
tainments, his scholarly accomplishments and his v. Railway Co., 3 C. B. 229, and Morse v. Railway, fine social qualities rendered him a general favor16 N. W. Rep. 358). Other courts have held, as ite. Indeed, it is said that so great was his poputhis court did in the Bloor case, that all evidence as larity with his fellow students, that he was president to collateral facts, or those which are incapable of
of five societies, some of them connected with liter
ary, some with scientific, and some with medical and affording any reasonable presumption or inference
surgical subjects. as to the principal fact or matter in dispute, should
Having graduated from Edinburgh, he made the be excluded, because such evidence tends to draw tour of Europe, returned to Ireland and commenced away the minds of the jurors from the point in issue, the practice of law under the most prosperous cirand to excite prejudice, and mislead them; and
cumstances. But after the lapse of a year, and
of ardent devotion to his profession, an event occurred moreover, because the adverse party, having had no
which changed the whole course of his future life, notice of such a course of examination, is not pre
causing him to relinquish the medical profession and sumably prepared to meet it. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 52; adopt the practice of law. This was the sudden death Collins v. Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396; Parker v. Pub of his elder brother, Temple Emmet, a highly distinlishing Co., 69 Me. 173; Hudson v. Railway, 59 Iowa,
guished member of the Dublin bar. Mr. Emmet 581; Bell v. Railway, 64 id. 322,-- and the authori
entered his brother's office, then in charge of his sur.
viving partner, and began the study of law with tho ties referred to in these opinions. The evidence in
same determinatiou and unwearied industry that this case was not offered for the purpose of showing obaracterized him at college and as a student of notice to the town of the defect, but to prove that medicine. the stone constituted a defect, and was in the tray. The study of law opened to him fields of intellectual elled part of the highway. This was the plain / pleasure quite unexpected. He found in the quaint object of the testimony; proving from the experi
style, the metaphysical subtleties and scholastic ro
finements of the old law writers, rich intellectual ence of others, who had passed with a wagon or aliment. The range of reading he marked out for himcutter along the highway, that accidents had hap-sell, still found in one of his old place books, shows