COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. The following decisions were announced on Tuesday last: Judgments affirmed with costs Wild v. O'Brien, sheriff, etc. Carter v. Cain-Odell v. DeWitt -The Gaylord Manufacturing Company v. Allen-The People ex rel. Lord v. Crooks-Hall v. Hibbard - Siebert v. The Grand Street and Newtown Railroad Co. Judgment affirmed - Wilkie v. The People, etc. Judgment reversed and new trial granted - Wood v. The People, etc.— Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event - Dusenbury, v. Hoyt.Judgment modified and the terms to be settled by Judge Folger-Sherman v. Parish.-Judgment of supreme court and decree of surrogate reversed and proceedings remitted with directions to surrogate to allow the appellants the charges for taxes and commissions on the $10.000, with costs to the appellants to be paid out of the estate, and without costs to the respondent Hendrickson v. Whitson. Orders affirmed with costs - In the matter of the petition of Stead to vacate an assessment, etc.; In the matter of the petition of Ellsworth to vacate an assessment, etc.; In the matter of the petition of Grove for an accounting, etc. Order granting new trial affirmed and judgment absolute for plaintiff with costs-- Ludington. Miller-Phillips v. McCoombs.— Order granting new trial affirmed and judgment absolute for defendants with costs-Duvall v. The English Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. James in the city of New York. Order so far as appealed from by Mrs. Crombie affirmed with costs, and the appeal of James Crombie ordered to stand over until the argument of the appeal from the judgment - Terrett v. Crombie. 1. The clerk will make up a calendar for the January Term, 1874, on which shall be put, without further notice, all the causes not previously disposed of which have been on either of the printed calendars of the present year; and also all other causes pending before the Commission which shall be noticed for argument by either party. 2. All other causes pending before the Commission shall be put upon a special calendar, which shall also be printed and brought into court at the beginning of the January Term, 1874. This special calendar will be called over at the next succeeding term, beginning on a day to be hereafter fixed, and to be announced at the January Term. Cases upon it which shall be answered to when called, will be transferred to the foot of the general calendar. Cases not answered to will be dismissed. DECISIONS HANDED DOWN. Judgments affirmed with costs-Bain v. Matteson; Lawrence v. American National Bank; Wright v. Wright; Savage v. Allen; Cole v. Hughes; Suydam v. Jackson; Van Leuven v. First National Bank of Kingston; Holt v. Ross; Debbe v. Debbe; Isham v. Phelps; Schepeler v. Eisner; Benjamin v. Elmira, Jefferson and Canandaigua Railroad; Williams v. Egbert; Condict v. Grand Trunk Railway; Craw v. Easterly; Stanton v. Jerome; Moody v. Osgood. Judgment reversed - Fitch v. Hassler. Judgments reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event - Meyer v. Cullen, executor of Goedel; Hammond v. Varian; Getty v. Develin; Merritt v. Briggs (by default); Wetzell v. Dinsmore; Newell v. Robbins; Wheeler v. Spinola. Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against the plaintiff with costs - Hale v. Hays; Johnson v. Albany and Susquehanna Railroad Co.; Jameson v. Brooklyn Skating Rink Association. Order reversed and judgment upon the verdict affirmed with costs - Gillespie v. City of Newburgh. Order reversed and judgment upon report of referee affirmed with costs-Wallace v. Drew. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, unless plaintiff shall, within twenty days after the remittitur shall be filed in the court below, elect to remit from the judgment the sum of ten hundred and twenty-five dollars, and interest thereon from March 26, 1867, in which case judgment for the balance affirmed without costs to either party in this court Noyes v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. W. H. BENJAMIN, Clerk. LEGAL NEWS. Edward Jenkins, Esq., barrister, and the author of "Ginx's Baby," is coming to this country to lecture. The law department of the New York University opened on the 6th instant. The court of appeals took a recess on Friday, the 10th inst., until Tuesday, the 11th day of November next. Prominent Philadelphia lawyers are taking steps toward ridding the bar of that city of "Shyster" practitioners. The Tichborne claimant has published an appeal, saying, that the chief justice's order has cut off his supply of funds. Miss Florence Cronise, sister of Miss Nettie Cronise, the female lawyer of Tiffin, Ohio, has just been admitted to the bar at Kenton, in the same State. Right Hon. Russel Gurney, who has been sojourning in this country for several months past, as the representative of the British government in the American and British Claims Commission, has sailed for Europe. The death of Hon. Charles I. Biddle, a former prominent member of the Philadelphia bar, and of late years one of the editors and proprietors of the Age of that city, occurred last week. The number of volumes upon the shelves of the Cincinnati law library is 8,613. In addition to this, there are about 1,200 other volumes, composed mainly of duplicates and session acts. The Boston Daily Advertiser is authorized to say, that what purported to be a report of a conversation with Judge Hoar, on the subject of the Chief Justice of the United States, recently published in the New York Herald, is, in material particulars, inaccurate and imaginary. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, OCTOBER 18, 1873. THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS. The volumes of reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court issued during the past summer, show us that we have nothing to expect in the way of improvement from the gentlemen who are now engaged in the business of reporting. The elaborate report of the committee of the Bar Association pointed out very clearly the many grievous faults of some of these reporters, and the Law JOURNAL has, several times, undertaken the same kind office, but neither the one nor the other has succeeded in bringing about any perceptible reformation. Whether it be from an indifference on their part to the opinion of the profession, or from an inability to leave the ruts in which they have so long run, we do not pretend to say; the result is alike unsatisfactory and objectionable. One thing however we shall not hesitate to predict, that either these reporters must mend their ways or cease to exist as reporters. There is no mistaking the fact that the general conviction of the profession is, that the present method of reporting the decisions of the Supreme Court is shabby in the extreme. The wonder is that some one of these reporters has not taken advantage of the moment to inaugurate something worthy of the name of "system"--something adequate to the needs of the profession. The task is surely not a very difficult one. To gather all the decisions of every term of the court, to publish the best of them promptly and accurately is not an undertaking fraught with any very serious obstacles. Yet none of our reporters have attempted it at least successfully. The reporter who shall do this must, of necessity, crowd the others to the wall. One series of reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court is all that is necessary, and is all that would be supported, provided it fulfilled its mission. It matters little whether it be an "official" series by a State reporter, or a series conducted by private enterprise- both have so far failed, and the market has become one of merit, wherein the battle will be to the strong and the race to the swift. The committee of the Bar Association seemed rather hesitant about recommending any plan of relief, its professed and undoubted reason being that it desired time for consideration and suggestions. Its preference was, however, unmistakably in favor of a series of reports on the plan of the English Law Reports, which are issued in monthly parts, and report the cases within a very few months of their determination. Nearly six months have passed and nothing further has been heard from the Committee. Whether it has abandoned the whole matter, or has it still under consideration we do not know, we assume the latter. To devise a scheme is easy; to carry it out in all its parts would be a matter of some difficulty, though as we before said, not of sufficient difficulty to render its success doubtful in competent hands. The reports of the future which shall distance the series now running must be somewhat as follows: In the first place, the reporter must be a good lawyer. There is a sort of impression that the work of reporting is mechanical that the reporter is a sort of legal tailor, who puts together the material cut ready to his hand. A little consideration, or better still, a little experience, would satisfy almost any one that to report well requires a very considerable degree of ability, and a very good knowledge of law. To be sure the style of reporting that has been sometimes indulged in, in this State of late, would require neither ability nor knowledge. To make up a headnote of excerpts from the opinion to print the case and the arguments in full is easy enough; but to prepare a headnote which shall clearly and accurately present the point decided, to make a statement of the facts which shall be neither too concise nor too diffuse, to select and condense such parts of the arguments of counsel as are pertinent to the decision, require skill and judgment, and industry and legal knowledge. In the next place the reporter must organize a system for procuring all decisions of the court promptly. The practice now is except in the city of New York for each judge to retain his own opinions, and the reporter would find it necessary, not only to have the consent of the judges, that copies of their opinions should be made, but also to have a corps of men whose duty it should be to make and forward the copies. None of our present reporters have attempted any thing of this kind. They have contented themselves with using whatever was sent to them by judges or lawyers. The result is, that their volumes, as reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court, are fragmentary and incomplete. In the third place the reporter must make arrangements to procure the cases and points, that he may intelligibly report the decisions. To work without these, is as difficult and unsatisfactory as the old process of making bricks without straw. With the machinery for procuring the materials complete, and in working order, the success of our reporter will depend solely on his own industry, judgment and ability. Men differ on the question whether all decisions of the court should be reported, or only the more important of them-those cases involving new ог doubtful points. Were it an abstract question, we should answer that only the most important cases should be given; but in this State, the reporter who would supersede the current series and render them no longer of use to the profession, must publish every decision of the court that could be of service to that "the boy Frank Walworth was condemned, not by the just sense of law, but by the force and clamor of newspaper and street influence." Too much learning seems to have made this author mad. "Poor Frank" was condemned because the law directs the condemnation of the man who slays another, unless by accident or in self-defense; and the evidence in Walworth's case put in by the defense, left no alternative with either judge or jury. The writer then proceeds to revile Judge Noah Davis. He was " an unfortunate accident." Perhaps so for the prisoner, but not for the public. "He is a dull, stupid-looking man, and belongs to the second division of the second-class of lawyers." Here follows a very concise classification of the genus lawyer, at the head of which are placed "Thomas Addis Emmett, Ogden Hoffman, Charles O'Conor," and (let us do justice to modesty and merit), James A. McMaster. Judge Davis belongs to the class of "industrious students who try and form a system; and make it up as readily out of authors of no account as out of the best; and when made up, that is all there is of them, except their self-conceit. He is an infamous partisan, and we acknowledge a most profound contempt for him. Condemned to be a police justice, we would not let Mr. Davis practice in our courts as a pettifogger." This last savors of charity. The condemned police justice would extend his hand to poor Davis, and raise him out of the slough of pettifoggery to a more fitting field. Thereupon the able lawyereditor calls loudly for the impeachment or the forced retirement at an early day of "this Mr. Davis." Will nothing awaken the supine citizens to the enormity of this judge's offense-not even this scorching JAMES A. McMASTER ON THE BENCH, BAR, epithet? Far away from the writer as is the ideal It is not necessary to speak of the preparation of the cases for reporting. The reporter that is to succeed will understand this matter thoroughly. We respectfully await his coming. PRESS AND MEDICAL FACULTY OF NEW In the New York Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register of September 13, 1873, appears an editorial of two and a half columns, which, for ingenuous vanity on the part of the author, and absurd, ignorant comment on the subject-matter discussed, exceeds most lucubrations from the "Western Press." He is very angry at the manner in which the ease of "that broad-chested, free-breathing youth, poor Frank Walworth," has been treated by the Bench, the Bar, the Press and the Medical Profession. He begins, most refreshingly, by giving such undeniable authority as an "illustrious archbishop," that he, the writer, is more than capable of criticizing legal proceedings, because said prelate has said: "What a pity McMaster had not followed the profession of the law!" Indeed, as will appear, President Grant should think twice before he names any other person to fill the chair of the late Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. Having satisfied his readers that he is indisputably possessed of much legal acumen, the editor proceeds to lay down as the "right decisions of human law," Justice herself, she must hear his clarion-notes, and brandish aloft her two-edged blade. Let Davis tremble. And now the editor, who should have been a lawyer, takes up the defense (?) of Mr. O'Conor for putting in the plea of insanity, used, according to this last authority, as a fiction of law." "Some persons, altogether ignorant of the law, have blamed Mr. O'Conor." This is as patent as that heat follows friction. He who blames Mr. O'Conor must necessarily be ignorant of the law. It seems quite unnecessary to make the statement. But thereupon comes half a column descriptive of the lives and feelings of the Walworths before the murder, wherein we learn that, Benumbed, and in an unconsciously phrenetic state, preternaturally cool, Frank came to New York to see the beast he had to call father; that miscreant father came to see him, but, by some accident, left on his table the revolver he usually carried." How vividly, feelingly does this new champion of the prisoner make out the case for the prosecution, following the lead of the other "genius." And listen to the folfowing "position that is justified by the keenest legal observation." This position is divided into three was thrown in blindly, and served the purpose of the people, for it had the effect of bringing to light the truth in regard to the case, and in consequence the sentence of the prisoner, which, it is to be hoped, will be fully carried out. But to return to our legal editor. He thinks "those that did not know of the circumstances of their own knowledge, in place of letting their minds be obfuscated by the utterly faulty reports of the daily press," ought to have done more honor to Charles O'Conor, and have believed what he said, without regard to the evidence or the judge's charge. headings Legal, Moral and Distinctive. Under the first the case of the people is admitted, that "the laws of the State make no difference between the killing of a father by a son, and any other homicide." Under the second heading the writer states the defense by Legal Geniuses, i. e., "The word father implied to young Frank Walworth only what wolf, wild cat or panther would do to the child of a western log cabin." To which the reply is, cage him if the law allows it; if you kill him, abide the consequences of violating the laws. Under the third heading "the keenest legal observation" is made to believe that the boy Walworth "had none of the doubts of law in his favor; that the judge was brutal and unjudicial in his charge, and the jury were such stupid fellows that Mr. O'Conor, with his long and accurate judgment of juries, saw, on rising to address them, that it would be wasted words to treat the case as it is - exceptional in the whole history of criminal jurisprudence." According to this able writer, the fact that Mr. O'Conor, the recognized head of the legal profession in the United States, should have come back to prevent injustice to boy when he would not have resumed general practice for a fee of half a million of dollars, ought to have had some influence on the public mind." Now the latter part of this statement might be doubted were any one inclined to be skeptical, but one thing seems tolerably clear in regard to the first part that, however highly Mr. O'Conor may be held by the legal profession, there are many of his brethren who incline to the opinion that he should never have attempted to try an important criminal | abnormal." Angels and ministers of grace defend us! case. Let it be said, with all deference to his undoubted ability, he has not the peculiar characteristics and education which would have shown him that, in this case, he might have obtained a different verdict had he taken a far different course. Suppose he had confined the prosecution closely to the bare facts clearly provable. There was little or nothing provable beyond the mere fact of the killing. Suppose the defense had devoted itself to show that the father and son were on good terms-producing every scrap of evidence in favor of this position, and carefully concealing the evidence of bad blood, so as to convey the idea that the son must have acted in self-defense; that while fond of his father, who was undoubtedly a madman, he was forced to shoot him in a moment when his own life was threatened; that his coolness after the killing was the result of a knowledge of his innocence and horror at the deed - could a jury have been found, could any judge have been able, to refuse to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt? It seems possible, on reflection, to believe that had this cause célèbre been tried by an experienced criminal lawyer, Frank Walworth would not now be in Sing Sing Prison. Not but that he richly deserved his sentence, but because the evidence for the prosecution alone was too light to hang a dog, without the support of the evidence for the defense, which Disposing thus lightly of the daily press, he goes on to attack the "Medical Faculty," and says it should have been supposed that there was an "unfathomable mystery in the fixed and impenetrable look and speech (sic) of the young Frank Walworth." It seems the learned editor is as great an M. D. as an LL. D. from the manner in which he tells the faculty they know nothing of their business. They are mere ignoramuses. "The medical testimony for the poor youth was utterly ridiculous." He was a "palpable denial of any epileptic symptoms. These Doctors were ignorant (of what the writer knows was understood a thousand years ago), that, in certain conditions of life, there is a phrenesis, an action of the mind, which, according to St. Augustin (another of the writer's indisputable clerical authorities), comes neither from inspiration of good angels nor from instigation of devils. It is the result of natural causes, but it is none the less potential, and, as differing from ordinary laws, Is this a Solomon or an Admirable Crichton come to bless this weak-minded age? Methinks Dr. Grey, whose experience in the treatment of the insane has been perhaps greater than that of any man living, should leave Utica forthwith and walk the porches with this inspired genius. After finishing off the medical faculty, our editorial M. D. LL. D. turns the fierce fire of his mind once more toward that miserable atom of humanity, Judge Noah Davis. "Because, in an atmosphere containing much that was vile and to be detested, the heartbroken mother did not and could not howl like a common fish-wife, Judge Noah Davis and sundry others of his court, judging her by their own filthy belongings, have blamed her." This, Mr. Editor, is going far beyond the limit of decency. Judge Davis, instead of being "brutal," has one of the softest and most generous of hearts. Many a man can bear witness to the fact of seeing tears of sympathy in his eyes while listening to a tale of hardship by those seeking justice at his hands. Many a person can show material signs of his generosity to those in trouble, and of his aid to the afflicted, when to give that aid has caused embarrassment. But let us have done with this All-knower. He winds up his long article with this sentence: "Gov. Dix would do the bravest act of his life were he, on reviewing the evidence, to pardon young Walworth, who ought not to have been convicted." It is said that application has already been made to the Governor for the pardon of the murderer of Mansfield T. Walworth. That a strong effort is to be made must be taken for granted, as the prisoner numbers as friends many prominent and well-known persons, and they may be induced so far to forget their duty toward society as to urge the pardon of a man who has been fairly convicted of one of the most terrible crimes on record. Well, it is sincerely to be hoped that the most strenuous efforts will be put forth, with every argument possible, in favor of the pardon, so that the firm, clear-brained executive will be able once for all to put on record such a stern and logical denial of the petition that his successors in office, let them be weak or corrupt, will be forced by public opinion to overcome the objections interposed by the present governor, or refuse to yield to the repeated assaults of the prisoner's friends. Weakness in the executive with regard to the case of Walworth would be the signal for a general charge by all the legions CURRENT TOPICS. The Bar Association of New York has at last taken action upon the proposed amendment to the constitution. At a meeting on Tuesday last, Mr. W. M. Evarts, the president, in the absence of the committee to whom the subject had been referred, offered a resolution recommending to the people of the State, the adoption of the amendment providing for an appointive judiciary. The resolution was almost unanimously adopted, and measures taken to provide ballots and to otherwise facilitate a fair vote. It may be noticed by the way that the Times and Tribune newspapers are advocating the adoption of the amendment, while the recent Tammany judicial convention passed resolutions denouncing it. tem. The judges of this State are, on the whole, able and upright men, quite as good very likely as a governor would appoint. The strong argument against an elective system is, that it is wrong in principle — that it degrades the administration of justice, and the very conception of justice itself in the popular mind, by making party influence a recognized power upon the bench, and means of reaching it. However unbiased our judges may be, so long as they obtain and hold their positions through party influences, so long will they be open to the suspicion of partisanship – so long will the suitor be anxious to inquire into the political sentiments of the judge, and as to the political influence of his adversary. After all the discussion and gossip in relation to Senator Conkling and the chief justiceship, it seems quite probable that he is not to be the appointee. Senator Cameron has made the statement that Mr. Conkling assured him that he should not accept the position if tendered, as he desired to serve out his term in the Senate and to then retire from political life. Although he has no very serious intentions, we presume, to retire from public affairs, so early in life, it may be that he does not aspire to the bench. There is a strong professional influence in favor of Mr. Justice Miller, and we are assured that a majority of his brother judges would prefer his promotion. Should this be done, the vacancy occasioned will probably be filled from the south. The New York Times in a recent editorial, rehearsed the course of an action just brought to a close by a decision of the court of appeals, "nearly or quite three years" after its commencement, and said: "It ought to have been impossible for the case to be appealed more than once, and its whole course ought not to have occupied more than a couple of months at the most. Until such cases can be thus promptly settled, our laws are, to a great extent, an illusion and a snare -a means of making oppression and wrong-doing safe and cheap by making reparation uncertain and costly. And while this is true, republican government is to that extent a failure." We At the request of the New York Union League refer to the matter solely for the purpose of Club, and the Council of Political Reform, Mr. Dor-pointing out the fact, that since 1870 the administraman B. Eaton has prepared an address in favor of the constitutional amendment providing for the appointment of the judges. The address is an able one, and presents strongly, though sometimes not fairly, the arguments in favor of the amendment. It hardly seems possible, for instance, that any one but an over-zealous advocate would make the scandalous way in which our judicial decisions have been reported an argument against our judiciary. It would be well if the friends of this amendment would understand that nothing is to be gained by depreciating the judges that we have or have had under the elective sys tion of justice in this State has been quite as speedy as in any State in the Union or as in England. The old court of appeals, with its burdened calendar, was always a grievous cause of delay, but the new court disposes of the causes argued before it, with a promptness not excelled by any other court in England or America, as an examination of the reports will show. After a cause has once been tried, there is nothing now in the way of speedily obtaining the decision upon it, of the court of last resort. The "law's delay" is now confined almost entirely to the nisi prius. The circuit calendar in almost every county in the |