and special terms in their respective districts, and assign justices to hold them. § 12. A vacancy in the office of presiding justice in any department, occasioned by the expiration of the term or any other cause, shall be filled by election at a meeting of all the justices of the supreme court in that department, to be called by the secretary of state as soon as practicable after the happening of such vacancy. § 13. In case no presiding justice shall be present at the time and place appointed for holding a general term, the general term justices present may select any justice of the supreme court to fill the vacancy, and appoint one of their number to act as presiding justice until the presiding justice attends. And in case one or both general term justices shall not be present at the time and place appointed for holding a general term, the presiding judge present may select any justice or justices of the supreme court to hold with him such general term, until such general term justice or justices shall attend. 14. Civil actions hereafter commenced shall be known and designated as legal and equitable. Legal actions shall be those of which the supreme court had jurisdiction of the thirty-first day of December, eighteen hundred and forty-six; and equitable are those which on the day last aforesaid the court of chancery had jurisdiction. § 15. The rules and practice of the supreme court in reference to the trial of actions, and its incidents and all subsequent proceedings, as they existed on the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, shall apply to and govern the proceedings in actions hereafter brought in the supreme court herein designated as legal actions. The rules and practice of the supreme court in reference to the trial of actions, in its incidents and all subsequent proceedings, including appeals from orders and interlocutory and final judgments and decrees, as they existed on the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and forty-seven, shall apply to and govern all actions as herein designated as equitable actions; and all equitable actions hereafter commenced shall be entitled "Supreme court in equity." § 16. The presiding and general term justices shall, at their first meeting at the capitol in the city of Albany, make and adopt two sets of rules, one set shall prescribe the rules and practice of the supreme court in legal actions, and the other set, the rules and practice in equitable actions. And the power and authority possessed by the supreme court and the court of chancery, on the thirtieth day of December, eighteen hundred and fortysix, in reference to the practice, proceedings and rules of said courts respectively, is hereby conferred upon said presiding and general term justices, and they are hereby authorized and required to make all such rules, and adopt such practices as may be necessary for the prompt and efficient administration of justice in the prosecution of actions now pending or hereafter brought in the supreme court. CURRENT TOPICS. President Woolsey, of Yale, recently delivered an address before the Methodist State Convention at New Haven, on the subject of divorce. He insisted very strongly on the duty of the State governments to conform their laws on the subject to the laws of Christ, and adds that the State "cannot require what Christ forbids, nor forbid what Christ requires." He lays down the following as the "true policy in divorce -laws:" 1. "To prohibit divorce from the bond of matrimony in very few cases-in only one, if such a law can pass, or in two at most-adultery and malicious desertion. 2. Again, the law ought to grant separation from the bed and board sparingly. 3. The time before divorce becomes valid ought to be such as to allow a considerable delay after the sentence. 4. The guilty party in adultery ought not to he allowed to marry again in the life-time of the innocent partner, and if malicious desertion is allowed to dissolve marriage, much more onght this to be so in that case." When society shall have reached that state of perfection in which there shall be no more ill-assorted and unhappy marriages; no more brutality and desertion, the rigid rule of the New Testament will be sufficiently liberal, but in these days most of the States have given greater latitude to divorce, probably from a like reason to that which led Moses to "command to give a writing of divorcement," "because of the hardness of your hearts." Marriage is treated in law as a civil contract, and is governed by regulations deemed best calculated to facilitate the interests of society; and whether these interests are most facilitated by liberal or stringent divorce laws is a question on which both political and moral philosophers have differed. It is to be hoped that the Court of Appeals, to be organized under the new judiciary article, will adopt a different mode of disposing of causes from that at present in vogue. Under the present system the judges hear arguments for three or four weeks and then make a division of the causes among the judges for investigation. Each judge examines during the vacation the causes assigned to him, and writes the opinion. In nine cases out of ten he has forgotten the arguments advanced, except so far as they are contained in the papers handed up. At the next term a consultation is held on the causes argued the term before. Only two or three of the judges have studied any one case and the others have usually forgotten it and the argument. They base their opinions on their general knowledge and the results of the investigations of those to whom the cause was assigned. Now, it occurs to us that it would be a much better plan to hear arguments during the forenoon-say from ten till two- and then devote the balance of the day to consultation and the writing of opinions - such opinions to be written only after the law of the case has been settled, and to contain briefly the conclusions of the court, with, perhaps, the authorities on which they are based. In this manner nine-tenths of the causes can be disposed of at once, and in a manner more likely to lead to correct conclusions, since the facts and arguments will be fresh in mind. The plan will also relieve the judges of a vast amount of labor that they would otherwise be compelled to perform in investigating authorities and writing long opinions, and will reduce materially the size or nuraber of our Court of Appeals reports, without detracting in the least from their value. There is nothing gained by lengthy opinions, fortified at every step by the whys and wherefores. A simple and plain statement of the law as laid down by the court is all that is needed. This or similar plans have been adopted by the courts of several of the other States, by the United States Supreme Court, and we believe by some of the English courts. It was a very unfortunate thing for Traupmann, the notorious Paris murderer, and a very fortunate thing for humanity, that he was not tried in the State of New York. There were the most abundant grounds on which to base the "insane impulse" theory, and which is here irresistible. His advocate had evidently some notion of such a defense, but worked it up poorly. He would have gained some valuable hints had he read a detailed history of the trial of one Cole at Albany, or of one Sickles at Washington. The advocate, Lachaud, put the matter thus: "Gentlemen, here is a young man of 20 years, and eight dead bodies of his victims! Oh, I beseech you not to believe that. The prisoner is subject to one of the most frightful moral maladies which render men irresponsible. His crime?-it is written in the book, the 'Wandering Jew.' Throughout the whole world there are men of science who are concerned with this affair, and who have their eyes on this youth of 20. One of them said to me yesterday, 'Look at him; look at his attitude; look at his arms. Well, if this man be a ferocious beast, it is best to muzzle him, and not to kill him."" An eminent French physician, Dr. Amedee Bertrand, pronounced Traupmann insane. Here was the possibility of a defense every whit as strong as that which cleared Cole or Sickles, but the French courts and juries seem to stick to the good old-fashioned theory that a man may have mental disease and yet know the difference between right and wrong; that however strong the homicidal impulse, if he have sufficient reason to comprehend the nature of the act he commits, he should be punished. It is to be regretted that our courts and juries have not displayed a like adhesion to this theory. The moment we depart from it, we tread uncertain and dangerous ways. Lord Macaulay used to say that the population of Great Britain consisted of "about thirty millions, mostly fools." If the theory of the physicians be correct, he might have added, “and mostly insane." The medical definition of insanity is so liberal and comprehensive as to include a very large proportion of mankind. This is harmless in itself; but becomes pernicious when it is followed by the proposition that "no insane person ought to be punished," and especially so when that proposition is adopted by the courts. It was the doctrine of Lord Hale that some kinds of insanity furnish no excuse for crime. This seems to be a very sound and sensible doctrine. Whenever a person has sufficient reason to distinguish between right and wrong, and does the wrong, he should be punished whether he has mental disease or not. If we can get back to this doctrine we shall hear very little more of "emotional insanity," "insane impulses," "melancholia," and kindred defenses that have of late proved so formidable. We print in another column the text of the bills introduced into the Senate for the reorganization of the Supreme Court, under the new judiciary article. It is neither probable nor desirable that either bill will be passed as offered. Senator Murphy's bill provides that the first designation of general term justices shall be made by the Governor, and that subsequent designations shall be made by the Court of Appeals, or by the chief judge thereof, when such court is not in session. We fail to discover any benefit to be derived from calling in the services of the Court of Appeals to designate the general term justices. The matter would better be left entirely in the hands of either the Governor or of the justices of the several departments. The latter course provided by the bills of Messrs. Hardenbergh and Wood, we apprehend, will prove the more satisfactory. Senator Murphy's bill fails to make any provisions for the appointment of a reporter-a matter of considerable importance both to the bench and bar, and one that ought not to be over-looked. Senator Wood's bill provides for a sort of secondary general term, to consist of three justices, who are to hold terms at Albany to hear appeals from special terms in all non-enumerated motions, and all appeals from motions involving questions relating to practice. This proposition, if practicable, will relieve the regular general terms of a large amount of petty business. But perhaps the most remarkable provision is that in Senator Wood's bill (?? 14, 15 and 16), which proposes in effect to abolish the Code, and to return to the former practice. It has always been very questionable whether we have gained much by the sweeping changes made by the Code, but we are not prepared to take such an extensive step backward as that proposed by the Senator. These several bills, which undoubtedly contain at least the main features of the plan that will be adopted by the legislature, are of especial importance to the profession of the State, and the pages of the LAW JOURNAL will be open to any one who has any thing to say regarding their respective merits. We shall print in our next issue the text of the bill providing for the reorganization of the Court of Appeals, also that in relation to County Courts. A bill has been introduced into the Senate, and will be passed, providing that when any justice of sessions shall fail to attend at any court of Oyer and Terminer or of Sessions, or if a vacancy shall occur in such office, the presiding judge may designate any justice of the peace in the county to serve as such justice of sessions. The act of 1847 (chap. 280, 40) contained a provision of this kind, but it was omitted by the been that in several instances courts of Oyer and amendment of 1847 (chap. 470, 35). The result has Terminer and of Sessions could not be organized. In a recent number of the LAW JOURNAL we urged the necessity of the revision of the laws of this State. We are glad to notice that a bill for that purpose has been introduced into the Senate. It provides for the appointment of three commissioners by the Governor and Senate "to revise, simplify, arrange and consolidate the statutes, general and permanant in their nature," and to report to the legislature from time to time, "such contradictions, omissions and imperfections as they may discover," that defective laws may be amended or abolished. The commissioners may hold for three years, at a salary of $5,000 each, and $3,000 a year for the clerk-hire and contingencies of the commission. A motion was recently made at the General Term of the first district to debar one Oscar A. Harris, a New York divorce lawyer, for culpable malfeasance as an attorney and counselor at law and frauds practiced in obtaining divorces. The matter was re ferred to a referee to take evidence as to the truth of the allegation. This divorce business as practiced by a certain class of lawyers (so called), chiefly in the city of New York, is a burning shame to the profession, and every true lawyer will agree with us that the court should treat all offenders in the matter with the utmost rigor. The editor of the Independent is growing jubilant over the brightening prospects for lawyers of the fair sex. In a recent article he says: "We salute with fervent acclamation the on-coming of the day when human beings of both sexes will be able to enter the legal profession with equal opportunities." The key-note of this burst of rhetoric was the rumor that Anna Dickinson is about to enter the Law Department of the University of Michigan. Tilton, however, is of the opinion that the "gentle Anna" would prefer to be a "Philadelphia lawyer," and intimates that she would make a better one than any now in that city of brotherly love. If Miss Dickinson seriously cherishes any such designs, and Theodore is correct in his opinions, we have reason to sympathize with the leaders of the Philadelphia bar. No longer will they be "masters of the twelve;" their laurels will be stripped from their brows; their glory will have departed from Zion; for lo, a Portia comes, a second Daniel, learned in the law, and armed with such powers of eloquence and female charms, as to wring verdicts "From brassy bosoms and rough hearts of flint, LEGAL NEWS. Of the sixty-six United States Senators, forty-six are lawyers. Alpine, California, advertises for a lawyer - "a young, energetic fellow." James McCormick, a distinguished lawyer of Pennsylvania, died at Harrisburg on the 18th inst., aged sixty-nine. The Judges of the United States Supreme Court were recently entertained by President Grant at the White House. The revenue officials at New York have issued warrants for the arrest of a number of New York lawyers for not paying the special tax. Governor Fairchild recommends that the Legislature of Wisconsin submit to the people a constitutional amendment abolishing the grand jury system. A London tramp, arrested for stealing a plum-cake from a pastry cook's shop, pleaded in extenuation that he "was not going to starve in a Christian land." One of the Pennsylvania courts has decided that owners of dogs that bite are responsible for all injuries done, whether on the street or on the premises of the owner. A murderer, on being sentenced to be hanged in Terre Haute, Indiana, did not catch the date, and inquired: "When did you say, your honor, that occurrence is to take place?" A number of young practitioners at the bar in Brooklyn are about to organize a society for the discussion and acquisition of the principles and practice of the law by means of mock courts, debates, lectures, etc. The London papers contain accounts of the rejoicing in England on the first of January, when the new bankrupt law, which abolishes imprisonment for debt, except in cases of county court judgments, came into operation. In Ulster county, this State, a young lady who wished to marry a youth with $10,000, promised a lady friend $3,000 for her assistance. She succeeded, but the successful bride refused to pay the $3,000 when demanded, and a suit is the result." It is stated that Frederick T. Wallace, a well-known and hitherto highly-respected lawyer in Cleveland, Ohio, has fled from that city after being detected in a long and adroit series of forgeries. The amount thus far ascertained is over $24,000. The new Surrogate of New York county, Robert C. Hutchings, has removed all persons in his office holding positions by reason of political influence, and supplied their places with lawyers and persons versed in the law. Another important reform is the holding of Court every day in the week, except Sunday. A Southern paper informs us that a lawyer and a red-hot stove, the one having its feet braced against the other, upset in the Chancery Court at Nashville, the other day, while Judge Gaut was reading a deposition. The fire flew all over the room, and the Chancellor vociferously declared the court adjourned. Six Wisconsin jurors recently voted by ballot. Juror No. 1 voted, "No cose of action;" No. 2 voted, "Salt and battery, Second De Gree;" No. 3 deemed the prisoner "Gilty of Salt;" No. 4 decided there was 66 no action of caus;" No 5 voted it "assault and batory;" while No. 6 decided the prisoner "Guilty of an a salt only." A man named John Seiler recently obtained, in Rochester, a verdict for $3,000 against Peter C. Ward for enticing away his (Seiler's) wife. An Illinois divorce decree was offered by the defense, but the court would not admit it, on the ground that the courts of Illinois had no jurisdiction when both parties were residents of New York State. The Winsted (Conn.) Herald copies, from the early records of the town of Winchester, the findings of a justice court in May 29, 1781, in the case of one Phebe Turner, charged "with a breach of the Sabbath by laughing and playing in an indecent and unbecoming manner at ye meeting-house in time of public worship." The said Phebe was fined three shillings State money, and costs of three shillings more. A HAPPY QUOTATION. In a recent action in the Supreme Court, brought by a purchaser against the vendors, to recover damages for the non-fulfillment of an executory contract of sale, the defendants claimed an exemption from liabilty, on the ground that the subject of sale, a quantity of cotton, had been accidentally destroyed by fire, which, their counsel insisted, was an "act of God," rendering performance impossible. To this the plaintiff's counsel replied: "There seems to be an inclination, sometimes, among jurists, to attribute to the Almighty what cannot be distinctly charged upon any one else. It would be better for them to follow the advice which Horace gives to dramatic authors, not to introduce a God upon the stage, except in a crisis worthy of such an awful intervention. Nec deus interrit, nisi dignus vindice nodus Inciderit." (Dexter v. Norton et al., to be reported, 55 Barbour.) A SCENE IN COURT. The following story of the debut in court of a strongminded American lady is from the New Orleans Times: It turned out that some years before, in some proceedings in which Mrs. Gaines' rights were involved, Judge Buchanan had made a motion for a brother lawyer who was retained against Mrs. Gaines. This, it was decided, did not justify his recusation, and the case proceeded, and was, we believe, in the Supreme Court, at least, determined in favor of Mrs. Gaines. This was the first appearance of Mrs. Gaines as her own advocate in court. Since then she has advocated her case in and out of court, to the judges, in public and in private, and to every body else, and in every place, and under all circumstances, and in every form, and with every agency and appliance, exhausting and surviving scores of lawyers, and maintaining all the while her confidence, her equanimity, her earnest zeal and unflagging energies, and exhibiting to the world the most remarkable example of courageous devotion and resolute persistency which can be found in the history of these severest of all trials of human patience and endurance, tedious, complicated and exciting lawsuits." BOOK NOTICES. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Albert G. Browne, Jr., Reporter. Volume III; being Massachusetts Reports Volume XCIX. Boston: H. O. Houghton & Company. 1870. Mr. Browne has a very satisfactory idea of the duties of a reporter, and has succeeded in making his series among the most valuable of the Massachusetts Reports. The cases are selected with judgment, the head notes are, in the main, well prepared, and the statements of facts are "It is now more than twenty-five years since a suit was brought in the first district court of this city, then presided over by the late Judge A. M. Buchanan, which involved the legality of the claim of title of Myra Clarke Gaines to certain real estate in this city. It was what the lawyers call a jactitation suit, that is, a suit for a slander of title, in which damages were claimed of Mrs. G. for pretending that she had any title to the property of plaintiff. When the case came up for trial, Mrs. G. appeared in court with her counsel, and her gallant and veteran husband, the hero of Fort Erie, and one of the highest types we have ever known of the gentleman and chivalric soldier — Gen. Edmund Pendleton Gaines. The general was a very strict observer of the regulations and of all the proprieties of the service and of society, and on this occasion he appeared in his uniform, with his sword by his side. Mrs. Gaines was defended in the suit by able and eloquent counsel, but in the progress of the trial these falling into a wrangle with the judge, declared that they could not compromise their professional dignity by a further continuance in the case, and so they withdrew from the court-room; whereupon the general arose and announced to his Honor that he was the husband of the defendant in the suit, and in that character, and as an admitted member of the bar of the United States, he might claim the right to represent his wife's interests. When he married that lady he had, besides his obligation as her husband and a gentleman, assumed the additional obligation to his old friend, Daniel Clarke, to stand by his daughter sufficiently full to enable us to understand the exact quesin all her trials. He was there to fulfill that duty. Unfortunately, when he studied law in Virginia it was under a very different system of jurisprudence. And he felt very much out at sea in the courts of a civillaw State. He would, therefore, ask that the lady defendant, who was better acquainted with the remarkable facts of her history than any one else, should be allowed to address the jury in her case. The judge stated that the lady had the right to argue her own case. Then the general, with that grand old dignity for which he was so distinguished, led forward Mrs. Gaines, who proceed to address the jury at great length reading numerous documents bearing upon her case. Whilst reading these documents the judge, who was a high-spirited man, interfered, and notified her that she could not be allowed to read documents which were not in evidence in the case. The lady still persisting, the judge again interfered, and a disagreeable wrangle arose, in the midst of which Mrs. Gaines charged the judge with having an interest against her. Judge Buchanan retorted with temper, and notified Gen. Gaines that he was expected to control his wife in court, where no persons were privileged. Whereupon the stately old general arose to his full altitude of six feet three, and assuming the position of a commander of grenadiers, and gracefully touching the hilt of his sword, responded: "May it please your honor, for everything that lady shall say or do I hold myself personally responsible in every manner and form known to the laws of my country or the laws of honor." This reply, and the accompanying action and the appearance of the general in his military garb, aroused to a still higher pitch the Irish ire of the judge, who quickly answered: "General Gaines, this court will not be overawed by the military authorities." "Rest assured, your honor, when an attempt of that sort is made, the sword which I wear in conformity to the regulations of the service, and out of respect to this honorable court, will be quickly unsheathed to defend the rights aud dignity of your honor, and of all the civil tribunals of my country." After these explanations, peace and order were restored, but the judge considered it his duty to note the charge of Mrs. Gaines, that he was sitting in a case in which he was interested. He should, therefore, reduce it to an exception of recusation, and require the evidence to be produced to sustain it. tion before the court. To give proper statements of the facts is one of the most difficult of a reporter's duties, and the one usually the worst performed. Some reporters make the statements so brief as to render it quite impossible to tell what was the exact point decided, and how far the decision may be regarded as an authority; while others go to the other extreme, and lumber their volumes with a mass of matter of no earthly use. Mr. Browne has followed the middle way, and has given clear and full statements, shorn of all matters not necessary to a comprehension of the points presented for adjudication. He has also given in the index-what every report should, but which few of them do, contain a list of "cases overruled, doubted, or denied ;" and a table of “statutes, cited, expounded," etc. There is one feature about these Massachusetts decisions that cannot fail to strike one accustomed to turn over the pages of the New York State Reports, that is, the apparent unanimity of the judges in the decision of each case. No dissenting opinions are reported, nor is any mention made of any judge differing from the views of the majority. When the majority decide, the decision is as much the decision of the court as if all the judges had concurred, and we fail to discover any benefit to be derived from re cording the voice of the minority, especially in a court of last resort. It only tends to lessen the dignity of a court, and to detract from the authority of its opinions. In one other respect, this book presents a favorable contrast to the Reports of the Court of Appeals of this State, and that is in the admirable manner in which it is printed and bound. In our next number we shall give an abstract of the cases of general importance contained in this volume. TERMS OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE COMING WEEK. January 31-Circuit and Oyer and Terminer, at Delaware, by Justice Boardman; Madison, by Justice Balcom. Special Term.-Monroe county, by Justice Johnson. A WARNING. A solicitor at Braintree has been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for appropriating to his own use the moneys of his client. This is, we believe, the first time that the offense, which is only too common, has been punished by indictment, plundered clients having been ignorant of the remedy or reluctant to enforce it. Now that it is known there can be no doubt that it will be more frequently resorted to by those whose confidence has been betrayed. Nor in the true interests of the Profession can we object to the law itself or its enforcement. In very truth there is no real difference between robbery by appropriating the money which clients have confided to the care of a solicitor, or which he has received for them in the course of business, and picking a pocket, or robbing a till. If any thing, the solicitor is guilty of the greater crime, for he adds breach of trust to theft, and uses the confidence of his employer for the purpose of robbing him. No excuse whatever can be offered for this crime, for no circumstances whatever will justify a solicitor in using for his own purposes the money which he holds in trust for others, whether that money has been given to him by his client for investment, or whether it has been received by him for his client. The moment he applies any portion of that money to his own use, he is guilty of dishonesty, and has committed a crime, even if done with design to refund it. We fear that the offense of thus misappropriating the property they hold in trust is more frequent than the public are aware. It results from the practice, against which we have so often and earnestly warned our readers, of mingling their clients' money with their own a course to be sedulously shunned by every prudent solicitor. Debts recovered, purchasemoneys received, rents collected, and such like, are too frequently paid to the private account of the solicitor at the bank; he cannot, or will not, distinguish what of the balance is his own, and what the property of others which he holds in trust; he draws upon the whole balance for his private uses, invades the property of his client, deluding his conscience with the suggestion that he does not know what is his own, averts some present pressure by the tempting crime, in the vain hope that something may turn up to save him. It is thus that hundreds of solicitors have been brought to ruin in times past, and if the Woodbridge example should be followed, it is thus that many will hereafter be brought to the felon's dock and the convict's prison. The warning we have given before we would emphatically repeat now. Make it an inflexible rule never to mingle your clients' money with your own. Keep a separate account at the bank, and pay over whatever you receive for a client with the least possible delay. By observing this rule, you will avoid the double risk of temptation and of error. You will both gain clients and keep them; for there is nothing that so recommends a solicitor to men of business as prompt paying over of debts collected and moneys received, and it will promote your peace of mind as much as it will advance your prosperity. - The Law Times. the opening of the recent sessions of the Superior Court in Aylmer, it was discovered that there were only thirty-three jurors present. The court was about to proceed with its ordinary business, when Mr. Peter Aylen pointed out that the law requires that at least forty jurors should be in attendance at the sessions of the Superior Court. Judge Lafontaine was in a quan dary. Afraid to proceed without a legal number, he temporized and explained, and argued and pleaded, but all to no purpose. Mr. Aylen was inexorable. And so the first day of the court was spent. On the morning of the second day the same difficulty appeared again. There were not enough petit jurors present to satisfy the demands of the law. Judgo Lafontaine thought that Mr. Aylen's ambition would have been satisfied with his having kept the court a whole day without transacting business; but he was mistaken. Mr. Aylen sternly denounced the way in which justice was administered in the district of Ottawa, and appealed to the plain written text of the law against holding a court with less than forty jurors. It was no use that Judge Lafontaine appealed in the interests of justice. His appeals fell upon deaf ears. The second day was spent as fruitlessly as the first. On the morning of the third day Judge Lafontaine took his seat upon the bench in triumphant humor. The forty petit jurors were present, and he felt that he could smile defiance at the foe. Mr. Aylen, robbed of a grievance, was mute. Just then the grand jury, which had been pushing through its business while the court was wrangling with Mr. Aylen, brought in its presentment. The unfortunate presentment renewed the strife. In their presentment the grand jurors expressed their regret that the judge's influence should be so much impaired by the charges that had been made against him both in and out of Parliament. Any other man in the judge's position would probably have regarded such an expression of sympathy as very equivocal indeed. But certain men gladly grip at straws, and the judge seemed to be overjoyed at the expression of sympathy. His joy, however, was of but short duration. Mr. Aylen sprang to his feet and protested against the presentment. He denounced it in unmeasured terms as misrepresenting the people of the district of Ottawa. The judge mildly protested, but his protests were unheeded. Warming with his indignation Mr. Aylen went further, and accused the officers of the court of malpractice in paying silver to the jurors, and pocketing the discount. This brought others into the row, and for a while there was the mischief to pay. Mr. Aylen condemned the whole administration of justice in the district of Ottawa as a sink of iniquity fitly represented by his honor who sat upon the bench. Every now and then, with piping voice, the court would say: 'Mr. Aylen, Mr. Aylen, you are interrupting the business of the court.' But the warning note was unheeded as the voice of a child in a thunderstorm. And that storm lasted until noon of that third day. After that there was peace, and Mr. Justice Lafontaine, on the afternoon of the third day, began the business of the Superior Court of the district of Ottawa. The moral of all this is not far to seek. A judge who, with all the terrors of law at his disposal, cannot make himself respected in his own court has no business to be a judge at all." SINGULAR SCENE IN A COURT HOUSE. The Ottawa Daily News says: "The name of Judge Lafontaine has become familiar to Canadian lips. Here in the province of Ontario we are justly proud of the high standing of the judges of our superior court. Our neighbors, however, of the province of Quebec are not so highly favored. Grave charges have been made against some of the judges of the superior and other high courts, and it is much to be feared that many of these charges are too well founded. Chief among the accused is his honor Judge Lafontaine, of the district of Ottawa. His position in the community over which he judicially presides may be inferred from the scenes that usually characterize the sittings of his courts. These scenes usually go unreported, but as they are a scandal to British justiceof which we usually boast so much-it may not be out of place to shed a little daylight upon them. At COURT OF APPEALS ABSTRACT. William T. Erickson, Admr., etc., Resp., v. David Smith and another, App's. Plaintiff's intestate was killed while a passenger on defendants' boat by an explosion of the boiler. An action for damages was brought by the administrator, and on the trial a certificate of the inspectors who inspected the boat, in pursuance to the act of Congress, passed August 30, 1852, was offered in evidence by the defendants. Held, that such certificate was evidence only so far as to show that the inspection had been made in the manner prescribed by law; and that further than that it contained nothing-giving it the |