REVISION OF THE UNITED STATES LAWS. During the past few days the house committee on the revision of the laws of the United States, of which Judge POLAND, of Vermont, is chairman, has been doing some very important work in reporting and in the passage by the house of several bills in which every practitioner and almost every litigant in the United States courts are much interested. The following is a synopsis of the principal features of the several measures: In the house of representatives, April 7, 1870, Mr. Poland, from the select committee on the revision of the laws, reported a bill, which was passed, relating to witnesses for respondents in extradition cases. The bill provides that whenever any person shall be brought before a judge or commissioner upon a charge of crime committed within a foreign government, and shall satisfy said judge or commissioner that any testimony of witnesses within his jurisdiction is material to the defense, and that the accused is unable to pay the fee of such witnesses, such judge or commissioner shall certify the fees of such witness to the marshal, and the same shall be allowed to the marshal at the treasury, and the marshal shall pay the fees to the witnesses and to the officers for summoning them. In the house of representatives, April 7, 1870, Mr. Ferris, from the select committee on the revision of the laws, reported a bill "to perpetuate testimony in the courts of the United States," which was passed. Section one provides that any party in interest in a suit in any court in the United States may cause the testimony of any witness material to him to be taken conditionally, and be perpetuated. Section two provides that upon producing to any justice of the supreme court of the United States, circuit or district judge, register in bankruptcy or commissioner appointed to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, due proof by affidavit that the applicant is party to a suit pending in some court of the United States, or has an interest in some matter which is, or may be, the subject of a suit in such court; that the testimony desired is material; that the party of adverse interest is of full age, with name and residence, such evidence may be taken after ten days from the appointment therefor by such officer. Section three provides for the summoning of the witness, first by showing the original summons, second, delivering a copy, and third by tendering fees and mileage same as allowed in district courts of the United States. Section four provides for proceeding to take testimeny ten days after serving notice on the adverse party, if within the district, and after thirty days if without the district. Sec ion five requires the officer to insert every auswer of witnesses to questions by either party, the deposition to be read to and subscribed by witness, certified by the officer, and within thirty days filed in the clerk's office if a suit is pending; or if not, then in such district as the officer granting the order shall appoint; the original order and atidavits on which the same was founded, and those proving service of such order, to be filed with the same. Section six The original affidavits or a certified copy to be evidence of compliance with this act. Section seven provides that same penalties for refusing to obey summons shall apply as if on the trial of a suit in the district court of the United States. Section eight provides that in case of death or insanity, or absence of witness, such deposition or a certified copy, may be given in evidence by either party. Sect nine provi,les that the deposition shall have the same effect as evidence, as the oral testimony of witness, and be subject to same objections and limitations. Section ten provides that an officer granting order for such deposition may require it to be taken by some other officer residing in the same district with witnes-es. Section eleven provides that depositions which have been lawfully taken in any suit pending in any court of the United States may be recorded in subsequent suits between the same parties, or those claiming under them, where the same subject-matter is in controversy. Section twelve provides that when witnesses are out of the jurisdiction of the United States, any circuit or district court of the United States may grant a commission to some officer in the civil or diplomatic service of the United States abroad, to take testimony of such witnesses upon direct and cross-interrogatives, attached to such commission, to be used as depositions hereinbefore authorized to be taken within the United States. In the house of representatives, April 6, 1870, Mr. Poland, from the select committee on the revision of the laws, reported bill, house report No. 340, "to extend the provisions of an act to provide further remedial justice in the courts of the United States," approved August 29, 1842, which act was passed in consequence of a difficulty about the steamboat Caroline, out of which grew the McLeod trial. That act provides that a person impris oned in the United States, claiming that the act done by him was done by the authority of a foreign government, could be discharged under the writ of habeas corpus by a judge of the supreme court or of the district court, upon proof that he was acting as an officer or agent of such foreign government in such manner as to be protected by its authority. This bill is to prevent kidnaping into the country. Section one provides that whenever any person has been seized in a foreign country and brought into this country, the writ of habeas corpus may be granted when the restoration of the person is claimed by the foreign country. Section two provides that such a demand of a foreign government may be proved by a certificate of the secretary of state under seal of the department; and upon application for the writ of habeas corpus and in proceedings thereunder, copies of any depositions taken in the state, province, or country where the seizure was made, shall be laid before the government by the diplomatic representative of such state or country, and duly certified by the secretary of state, shall be admitted as evi dence. Section three provides, that if the person brought into the country was seized in violation of the laws of the country where the capture was made, such prisoner shall be returned at the expense and under the safeguard of the United States to the place of capture, and be delivered to an agent of the government demanding the return of such prisoner; or if no such agent shall be found, he shall be set at liberty. Section four provides that any person unlawfully seizing any person in such foreign country, or aiding or detaining such person if brought within the jurisdiction of the United States, upon conviction, may be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both, in the discretion of the court. Offenses to be tried either in the district where the person was seized, or in any district where such person shall have been unlawfully detained. Section five provides that writs of habeas corpus under this act, or under the act of which this is an addition, may be issued by any judge of the supreme court of the United States, or any circuit judge within his circuit, or any district judge within his district, subject to the same right of appeal provided for in the original act. The bill passed. In the house of representatives, April 7, 1870, Mr. Jenckes, from the select committee on the revision of the laws, reported a bill, which was passed, entitled "An act Relative to Proceedings in Admiralty." It provides that United States commissioners and registers in bankruptcy are authorized to issue preliminary proceedings in admiralty cases. In the house of representatives, April 6, 1870, Mr. Poland reported back, with substitute, a bill (house resolution No. 510), respecting the taking of evidence upon bounty and pension claims. The substitute provides that whenever an original paper pertaining to the case as evidence shall have been filed in any one of the departments, a properly certified copy of such paper shall be received as evidence when presented in any other department where such original paper would have been received. The substitute was adopted, and the bill passed. In the house of representatives, April 5, 1870, Mr. Poland, from the select committee on revision of laws, reported a substitute for a bill (house resolution No. 719), " to extend the time in which certain offenses may be prosecuted," introduced by Mr. Ferris, which was passed. Section one provides that no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for forgery, perjury, subornation of perjury, or other offense hereafter committed in the application for, or prosecution of, any claim for any pension or bounty money or lands, unless a prosecution shall be instituted within four years after the offense. Section two provides that prosecutions for these offenses shall not be barred or affected by any prior statute of limitations, nor shall the act effect the prosecution of any offense committed prior to its passage. Charles G. Ames, who was convicted at Los Angelos, Cal., of robbing a stage, on the testimony of an accomplice, corroborated by the fact that while the robbers, whose faces were masked, were engaged in plundering the passengers, one called another "Charley," has been granted a new trial by the supreme court of the state, as the statute provides that no person shall be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration, and in this case the corroboration was insufficient, it applying, not to the defendant alone, but to any man named Charles. APPOINTMENTS BY THE GOVERNOR. By and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Notaries Public confirmed April 19th, 1870: Kings County.-John S. Anderson, Abraham B. Ackerly, John W. Byron, Cornelius A. Betts, Morgan G. Buckley, Ezra Baldwin, Jno. Burtis, Hugh Corboy, John M. Clancy, Theo. Cochen, Jas. L. Connelly, Simon Dunne, Jeremiah D. O'Driscoll, James L. Farley, Chauncy W. Felt, Abel Haywood, Samuel Irons, Joseph Kiernan, John Loomis, Geo. T. Lain, Edward B. Lansing, James A. McBain, Wm. W. Mershon, Wm. G. Merrill, Geo, H _Pendleton, Francis Quin, Clémens W. Richter, Wm. Russell, Henry L. Rider, Alex. H. Shipley, Henry R. Thomal, John A. Taylor, Henry O. Vidal, Edward W. Van Vranken, Daniel D. Whitney, Samuel S. Waterhouse, Hasson H. Wheeler, James L. B. Willard, Geo. D. Weeks, Albert Fries, Jos. F, Cooke, Wm. Morgan, C. L. Walker, James A. Falkner, Jas. T. Larkins, Daniel S. Downey, Horace R. Fletcher, Edward Sentell, Edward J. O'Flynn, John Callahan, Chas. H. Ludden, W. W. Ellsworth, J. S. Black, John Jaggard. Cy and County of New York. - John H. Comer, James Gibbons, Josiah W. Thompson, Demetrie T. Arosemena, Thos. Dunphy, Warren Springstead, Dan'l R. Reynolds, David Henriques, Michael Connolly, Jas. P. Campbell, Charles J. McDermott, Jaques Schmitz, Jacob Friedman, Augustus Wolz, Henry Morrow, Wm. Sutphen, Robert H. Woolsey, John McComb, Jr., Robert A. Young, Jas. G. Sinclair, Fred. B. Sears, A. W. Bailey, Moses Jeurem, Peter M. Ledwith, Aaron Dean, Wm. T. Riely, Wm. H. Class, August Hassey, Alexander T. Compton, John T. Sweeney, Mark Lanigan, John J. Martin, Wm. S. Dillon, George W. Bener, Julius Ascher, John R. Kelley, Gerson Golostein, Patrick Byrnes, Wm. Hallett, Albert K. Post, Edward Seleck, Charles H. Benedict, Lambert Quackenbush, John F. Twomey, Robert Murray, Frank S. Smith, C. W. Hanks, Chas. W. Welsh, James B. Bensel, Lewis L. Delafield, Louis T. Brennan, Wm. H. Allen, Jeremiah B. Aitken, Ogden N. Chapin, Jas. M. Hunt, Simeon D. Fredericks, Evan H. Hopkins, Henry Doune, Grenville A. Kissam, Edward C. Clement, Wm. B. Coleman, Alfred T.Ackert, Charles H. Neilson, Wm. May, Herman Schroeter, Derder H. Walker, John R. Walker, John B. Panners, Edgar J. Irving, John B. Ireland, James J. Traynor, Wm. Henry Morse, Theodore V. Bremson, Isaac M. Walton, Wm. Q. Judge, Wm. J. Bell, W. H. Munday, Chapman Coleman, James J. Ferris, Wm. A. Dunham, Augustus Gifford Vanderpoel, Wright Nelson, Daniel H. Stone, Celestin Astoin, Edward Rowell, Augustus W. Oliver, Samuel Barnett, Thomas Roese, R. C. de Thouars, Peter H. Jobes, John F. Tulley, John J. Levi, T. Kanady, Augustus Hynard, David R. Johnson, E. H. Clough, Charles M. Chancey, Richard S. Amerman, Henry R. Coddington, Patrick McMullen, W. Edelston, Charles W. Nassau, John H. Price, Alfred Tweed, Bernard C. Ryan, Daniel A. Murphy, Henry F. Sippold, Howard T. Marston, Peter A. Lehman, Thomas H. Horson, Alwyn A. Alvord, R. W. Pearsall, Henry A. Hiers, Thomas B. Mosher, W. Glasser, Frederick R. Lee, Morris F. Dowley, Lewis S. Goeble, Wm. F. Sutz, Lewis Sanders, Sargent P. Stearns, Andrew Gilhooly, Wm. H. Kinkaid, Zenas Newell, Wm. Robinson, Edward H. Hobbs, John Zimmerman, Francis B. Chedsey, Theo. P. Kelley, J. Folan, Arthur D. Williams, James Butler, Charles E. Tuthill, Charles V. Ware, David B. Barnum, Jas. E. Hadnett, Geo. W. Mahoney, Albert C. White, Jr., Oswego County.-J. De Witt Case, De Witt C. Gardner, William Foster. Albany County. - Andrew Vanderzee, Samuel Goodman, Scott D. M. Goodwin, John W. Mattice, Peter V. W. Brook. Ira Almy. Wyoming County. - Henry A. Wolcott. Delaware County. - Frank T. Abbott, John T. Odwell, Rockland County. — Alonzo Wheeler. Erie County.-Charles B. Guthrie, John B. Green, Oscar Folsom, Austin A. Howard, Francis E. Eustaphieve, Sardis Hobart, Jacob W. Gale, Abram Bartholomew, Wm. T. Hauchmaun, Truman C. White, Wheeler Hotchkiss, J. H. Hale, Willis J. Benedict, Frank H. Goodyear, John O'Riley, Joel Rogers. Saratoga County. - Harmon Rockwell, Abraham Van Rensselaer, F. H. Palmer. Westchester County, Henry. H. Fowler. Onondaga County.- John B. Sabine, Lawrence W. Myers. Fra klin County.-James C. Farnsworth, Horace A. Taylor. Steuben County. - Amaziah S. Kendall, John W. Dininny. Allegany County. - Henry H. Lyman, Jesse D. Carpen I cannot but be of the opinion that the law of this State, as it relates to estates of married women and their responsibilities by reason of such estates, is in an unsatisfactory condition. Upon the reading of the statutes "for the more effectual protection of the property of married women," it seems plain enough that the legislature has placed them in the precise condition, as to their estates, as if they were unmarried; and that between the unmarried women and the unmarried men there is, as there ought to be, no difference in such conditions. And with the exception of rights of dower, there is no difference between the estates of the owners of realty. These seem to me propositions about which there can be no diversity of opinion. Suppose a man owning and living in a house requiring repairs were to allow his wife to make them while he was otherwise occupied; or when, from infirmity or for other cause, he did not or could not attend to the matter in person. And suppose the wife should go to a hardware store declare the house to be her separate property, procure the articles required for the repair, make her written declaration that the house was her separate property, and pledging the same for the payment of the bill, which representations of ownership were false, and being false must be fraudulent. The wife takes the hardware, has it applied in repairing her husband's house, in his presence, and with his knowledge, and by his consent; at all events without any objection on his part, which would seem, of itself, to be consent. If he knew of the false representations made by his wife, he could not set them up in defense of an action brought to recover the value of the goods. If he was wholly and blankly ignorant of such false representations, inasmuch as he knew the goods were obtained somewhere, though he might not know where; and of somebody, though he might not know of whom; and as he accepted the goods, and saw them applied to his use and made a part of his freehold, would he not be held to have bought and accepted the goods so sold and delivered, and held to an implied promise to pay for them? That an affirmative answer must be given to this question of liability, I am unable to doubt. His refusal or neglect to pay for the goods would be a wrong, and where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Now, if we change the statement of the above supposed case only by placing the wife as the owner and the husband as the repairing agent, we have the exact case of Corning v. Lewis, 54 Barb. 51. It seems to me that the rules of law; the relations of owners to their property; the principles of right, and the administration of justice, do not, in any degree, depend upon the sex of parties, but upon abstract rules which apply to all things capable of ownership, and all persons capable of owning, and that sex forms no term in any legal problem which grows out of a mere estate in land, and the dealings of its owner with other persons. N. B. M. LEGAL NEWS. The President gave a dinner on the evening of the 21st inst., in honor of the new judges of the supreme court. We regret to learn that Chief Justice Chase is in poor health. He intends to take a trip to Europe during the suminer. The Mississippi legislature has appointed a special committee to memorialize Gov. Alcorn for the removal of Judge Shackelford for releasing Yerger on bail. The senate judiciary committee, by a majority of one, have reported favorably the nomination of Bradley and Strong to be associate justices of the supreme court. No action has been taken on them, a disposition being manifested on the part of the senators to await final action on the pending bill requiring justices to reside in the districts to which they are appointed. In a London court, recently, a woman who was making a rambling statement of the ill treatment she had received from a neighbor was told by a solicitor that she was making an omnium gatherum kind of a complaint. Your worship," said she to the magistrate, "I never use such words; I ain't given to bad language." A biography of the late Chief Justice Taney is in course of preparation by Mr. Samuel Tyler, of Georgetown, D. C. Shortly before the death of Mr. Taney he placed in the hands of Mr. Tyler a collection of papers and documents relating to his private and official life, that gentleman having long been his confidential friend, and having signified a desire to write the volume which is soon to make its appearance. In one of Judge Taney's letters in the above collection the following sentences occur: A judge of the supreme court ought never to be connected with the parties and politics of the country. If he should, he will certainly destroy his own usefulness on the bench, and the court itself will be finally brought into the political arena." Miss Emma Barkalow, who was recently admitted to the St. Louis bar, has auspiciously began her legal career. A few days ago a case was put into her hands which was so adroitly managed that a settlement was successfully effected without trial. The case was as follows: The plaintiff, a lady, claimed damages for a dead dog, whose earthly career was alleged to have been irregularly terminated by one of the city street cars. Sixty dollars was the amount of damages demanded. The directors of the railway company demurred to this bill, and retained Miss Barkalow as their counsel in the suit. There was overwhelming evidence of the fact that the dog was actually dead and could never bark again, as well as that its barkingless condition was caused by carelessness on the part of the defendants' agents. Miss Barkalow, therefore, with a sagacity and modesty which do her infinite credit, obtained a settlement of the case on favorable terms, notwithstanding that she thereby sacrificed a brilliant opportunity for making her maiden plea. A case was decided by the United States supreme court some days ago, which will no doubt create a sensation among holders of confiscated property in the south, many of whom made their purchases without fully understanding the law on the subject. The case is that of Bigelow v. De Forrest, in which certain real estate in Virginia was seized under the confiscation laws and sold, the owner being adjudged guilty of treason. The person having since died, his heirs brought suit in ejectment to recover the property. The claim was resisted, upon the ground that the title of the original owner was forfeited by his treason and his rights in the property thoroughly divested. But the United States supreme court decide that it was only his estate during his life which was divested, and since his death his heirs may recover his property. The decision is in accordance with clause two, section three, article three of the constitution of the United States, which says: "Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." TERMS OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR MAY. 1st Monday, Special Term (Motions), New York, Ingraham. 1st Monday, Oyer and Terminer and Circuit (Part 1) New York, Barnard. 1st Monday, Circuit (Part 2), New York, Brady. 1st Monday, Special Term (Chambers), New York, Cardozo. 1st Monday, Special Term (Motions), Kings, Barnard. 1st Monday, General Term, Albany, 1st Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Waterloo, Dwight. 1st Tuesday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Elizabethtown, James. 1st Tuesday, General Term, Buffalo. 2d Tuesday, General Term, Poughkeepsie. 2d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Ballston Spa, James. 2d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Oswego, Morgan. 2d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Ontario, Johnson. 2d Tuesday, General Term, Broome. 3d Monday, Special Terms (Issues), Kings, Barnard. 3d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Albany, Hogeboom. ed Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Chemung, Boardman. 3d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Delaware, Balcom. 3d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Chautauqua, Talcott. 3d Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Orleans, Daniels. 3d Tuesday, Special Term, Lewis. 4th Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Sullivan, Peckham. 4th Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Onondaga. 4th Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Genesee, Danjels. 4th Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Niagara, Marvin. 4th Tuesday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Plattsburgh, Bockes. Last Monday, Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, Otsego, Parker. Last Monday, Special Term, Corning, Johnson. NEW YORK STATUTES AT LARGE.* CHAP. 151. AN ACT to regulate proceedings against corporations by injunction and otherwise. PASSED April 7, 1870. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. An injunction to suspend the general and ordinary business of a corporation or a joint-stock association, or to suspend from office any director, trustee or manager of a corporation or joint-stock association, or to restrain or prohibit any director, trustee or manager of a corporation or joint-stock association from the performance of his duties as such, shall not be granted, except by the court, and upon a notice of at least eight days of the application therefor to the proper officers of the corporation, or the director, trustee or manager to be enjoined or restrained; and an injunction granted for any of the said purposes, except by the court and upon the notice in this section prescribed, shall be void. 2. No officer or director of a corporation shall be suspended or removed from office, otherwise than by the judgment of the supreme court in a civil action, in the cases prescribed by the revised statutes, and all actions and proceedings against a corporation, when the relief sought or which can be granted therein shall be the dissolution of such corporation, or the removal or suspension of any officer or director thereof, shall be brought by the attorney-general in the name of the people of the days' notice of the application therefor, to the proper officers of such corporation: 1. In a civil action brought by a judgment creditor of the corporation, or his representatives, after execution has been issued upon such judgment and returned unsatisfied in whole or in part. 2. In a civil action brought by a creditor of the corporation for the foreclosure of a mortgage, upon the property over which the receiver is appointed, and when the mortgage debt, or interest thereon, has remained unpaid at least thirty days after it became due, and was duly demanded from the proper officers of the corporation, and when either the income of such property is specifically mortgaged, or the property itself is probably insufficient to pay the amount of the mortgage debt. 3. In a civil action brought by the attorney-general for a dissolution of the corporation when it appears to the court that such dissolution ought to be adjudged. 4. In a civil action brought by the attorney-general or by the stockholders to preserve the assets of a corporation, having no officer empowered to hold the same. 5. In the cases specifically mentioned in title four, chapter eight, part three of the revised statutes. 4. Any director or other officer of a corporation or joint-stock association, upon whom shall be served any notice of an application for an injunction restraining or affecting the business of such corporation or joint-stock association, or for a receiver of its property and effects, or any part thereof, who shall conceal from or omit to disclose to the other directors, trustees, managers and officers thereof the fact of such service, and the time and place at which such application is to be made, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, and shall be liable, in a civil action, to the corporation or joint-stock association for all damages which shall be sustained by it by reason of such proceedings. 5. The provisions of this act shall extend and apply to all corporations and joint-stock associations, created or existing by the laws of this or of any other state or government, doing business within this state, or having a business or fiscal agency, or an agency for the transfer of its stock therein, and to the directors, trustees, managers and other officers of such foreign corporations or jointstock associations, and to all proceedings by the attorney-general, in the name of the people of this state, under the laws regulating proceedings against corporations: except that it shall not apply to corporations or associations having banking powers or power to make insurances, or to such as shall be organized under the general manufacturing laws of this State. 26. This act shall take effect immediately. CHAP. 215. AN ACT to amend "An act for the publication of the session laws in two newspapers in each county of this state," passed May fourteenth, eighteen hundred and forty-five. PASSED April 14, 1870; three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section three of the act entitled "An act for the publication of the session laws in two newspapers in each county of this state," passed May fourteenth, eighteen hundred and forty-five, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: §3. It shall be the duty of each board of supervisors, in the several counties of this state, at their annual meeting, to appoint the printers for publishing the laws in their respective counties. The appointment shall be made in the following manner: Each member of the board of supervisors shall designate by ballot one newspaper printed in the county to publish the laws, and the paper having the highest number of votes, and the paper having the next highest number of votes shall be the papers designated for printing the laws, provided such papers are of opposite politics, and fairly represent the two principal political parties into which the people of the county are divided. If said papers so balloted for and chosen are not of opposite politics, and do not fairly represent the two principal political parties into which the people of the county are divided, such balloting and choice shall be of no effect, and the balloting shall continue until two papers (if such there be in the county) are chosen that meet the requirements of this section. If there shall be but one paper published in the county, then, in that case, the laws shall be published in that paper. § 2. This act shall take effect immediately. CHAP. 242. AN ACT to amend an act entitled "An act to allow the several towns of this state to raise an increased amount of money for the support of roads and bridges, and to provide for increased compensation of commissioners of highways and other town officers," passed April fifteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven. PASSED April 15, 1870; three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section two of an act entitled "An act to allow the several towns in this state to raise an increased amount of money for the support of roads and bridges, and to provide for increased compensation of commis. sioners of highways and other town officers," passed April fifteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: § 2. The commissioners of highways and assessors in any town in this state shall be allowed the sum of two dollars per day for each day actually and necessarily spent in the discharge of their official duties. 2. Subdivision one of section fifty-three of title four of part one of the Revised Statutes is hereby amended so as to read as follows: 1. The supervisor (except when attending the board of supervisors) town clerks, assessors, justices of the peace, overseers of the poor, inspectors of elections and clerks of the polls, shall receive two dollars per day for each day's service performed by each or either of them. 23. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. 24. This act shall take effect immediately. СУАР. 277. AN ACT to amend an act entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act for the benefit of married women in insuring the lives of their husbands,' passed April fourteenth, eighteen hundred and fiftyeight." PASSED April 18, 1870. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The first section of " An act to amend an act entitled 'An act for the benefit of married women in insuring the lives of their husbands,' passed April fourteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, and amended by an act passed April eighteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six," is hereby amended so as to read as follows: 21. It shall be lawful for any married woman, by herself, and in her name, or in the name of any third person, with his assent as her trustee, to cause to be insured for her sole use the life of her husband, for any definite period, or for the term of his natural life; and in case of her surviving such period or term, the sum or net amount of the insurance becoming due and payable, by the terms of the insurance, shall be payable to her to and for her own use, free from the claims of the representatives of the husband, or of any of his creditors, or any party or parties claiming by, through or under him. But, when the premium paid in any year out of the property or funds of the husband shall exceed five hundred dollars, such exemption from such claims shall not apply to so much of said premium so paid as shall be in excess of five hundred dollars, but such excess, with the interest thereon, shall inure to the benefit of his creditors. § 2. This act shall take effect immediately. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, MAY 7, 1870. MR. O'CONOR AND THE CODE. "I think the code contains, as I best recollect at this moment, only one thing which can be called new in principle, and this is an attempt at an absolute impossibility in prescribing the rule of pleading. It declares in substance and effect that you shall not plead, as in the old system, the conclusions in law or in reason from the facts of the case, and at the same time it prohibits you from stating or detailing the evidence merely on which you rely. You are required to state the "facts" which that evidence conduces to prove. Here, under the name of" facts," we find some things require to be stated which are neither in the vulgar sense of the word the mere fact, or transaction, or event, which did occur and can be proven by direct evidence, and are not the general, rational or legal conclusions from such fact, transaction or event. "Now, according to my conception, it requires somebody much more wise or more subtle than myself, or any special pleader I have ever been acquainted with, to define or find out what it is that should be stated in a regular pleading drawn in compliance with this requisite of the code. I am not aware that any one has ever attempted to do it. The common practice in this state is to tell your story precisely as your client tells it to you, just as any old woman in trouble for the first time would narrate her grievances, and to annex by way of schedules, respectively marked A, B, C, etc., copies of any papers or documents that you may imagine would help your case. This is most emphatically a fair description of all the pleadings which come from the office of the chief codifier himself. A demurrer to any pleading under the code is a very dangerous step, because it is utterly impossible for the keenest investigator to determine in most cases what any other reader than himself will understand to be the import of the pleadings if it be demurred to. "You may well imagine under these circumstances that, except in the very commonest and very simplest of cases, there are no precedents which would be of use to one beginning to draw pleadings under the code. Its idea seems to be that every vulgar ignoramus, upon reading them, will, from their conformity to his own helter-skelter manner of thinking and writing, think them quite sensible and intelligible, and that a person of opposite character and habits shall always be unable to comprehend what they mean, and consequently be forced to conclude that he must suspend judgment on their merits until the trial, and that if the parties then make out a case or a defense, the pleadings may then and there, or afterward, be amended, as occasion may require. "It is truly laughable to one conversant with both systems to see the blunders into which lawyers of great ability, who have come to the bar within the last ten or fifteen years, sometimes fall in framing a declaration, plea, or subsequent pleading at common law in the circuit court of the United States." We had supposed, until we saw the above, that the old rams of the law had done with butting at the code. One very able and conscientious judge went untimely to his grave with spite at the code, which he used to vent in his opinions, until it was evident that he was a monomaniac on the subject. But this was many years ago, and since then the main features of the code have been copied in several other states, and if there is any feature which has met with more general approval than another, it is that which Mr. O'Conor has selected for animadversion above. From some other parts of his letter, published in a recent number of the LAW JOURNAL, from which the above is quoted, we strongly suspect that he has at some time been unfortunate in demurring to some of "the pleadings which came from the office of the chief codifier himself." To our mind the highest praise which can be given to the code is contained in the words which he himself italicises. Can any one explain why the time of suitors, courts and community shall be consumed in contests about forms, and modes of expression, which, after they are decided, leave the party just where they started years before? Men are too busy and too much in earnest in the nineteenth century for any such fooling. It was all well enough in those halcyon, respectable and conservative days, a generation ago, when Mr. O'Conor and a few other eminent gentlemen monopolized the practice of the law, because pleading was so precarious and difficult. Justice was a jealous god, and was deaf to the entreaties of her suitors, unless they prayed according to established forms. It was no wonder that Mr. O'Conor, et id omne genus, sigh over the departure of the days when justice depended on pleading more than proofs, and they were the high priests who alone knew how to put up the prayers. But, if we remember rightly, demurring was always a dangerous step." Woe be to the priest who did not pray according to rule; but still greater woe to the other priest, who objected that the prayer was not in the proper form, if it turned out that it was! And it was a matter of delicacy to determine how to wind up the prayer. The great British advocate, Mingay, in speaking for a defendant who was sued for the price of keeping a horse, and who defended on the ground that the fodder was of poor quality, said to the jury: "Gentlemen, the oats and hay were unfit to eat, and naturally the horse demurred." "He should have gone to the country," responded his antagonist, Erskine. 66 If any thing could justify the vulgar idea that law is a lie, and all lawyers are liars, the common law system of pleading would do it. It was a grand scheme of lies. The science was monopolized by a few adroit word-spinners. The most skillful pleader was he who most deceitfully and ingeniously concealed from his adversary, until the moment of trial, all suggestions of the real nature of the action. If the cause of action was a promissory note, he charged that the defendant was indebted to him for money lent and advanced, for money had and received, for money paid, laid out, and expended, for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, for work, labor and services done, performed and rendered, and every thing else under the sun except a promissory note. And so the wretched defendant remained in dense ignorance of what was to pay until he came into court. By-and-by this state of things began to strike legislators and jurists as inconvenient, not to say unjust, and so the plaintiff was ordered to append to his declaration, in which he told all the aforesaid lies, a notice stating the truth, to wit: that the cause of action was a promissory note; or rather, that on the trial he would offer in evidence the note, the real cause of action, to give efficacy to the common counts, which constituted the lies. Com |