Графични страници
PDF файл

to change the general rule of liability in that state by proof of the company's custom of notifying consignees of the arrival of goods, the usage must be shown to be of an established nature, and the notices indicative of an intention on the part of the company to remain liable as carrier till the consignee had had reasonable time to remove the goods. la this case the evidence we held insuffi. cient to show usage varying the rule. 49 Chicago, Ill.

Arthur P. WILL.

49 See further as illustrating this modification: Reiss v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 533; Norton v. The Richard Winslow, 67 Fed. Rep. 259; American Sugar Retinery Co. v. Gbee (Ga.), 21 S. E. Rep. 388; Frank Bros. v. Cent. R. Co., 9 Pa. Sup. Ct. Rep. 129; Tex. & P. R. Co. v. Clayton, 84 Fed. Rep. 305.




Supreme Court of Wyoming, May 23, 1901. 1. The attempt to bribe witnesses while attending a trial in which they are to testify, wbicb occurs in the ballway of the court bouse, or adjoining the building on the outside, is punishable as a contempt occurring in the presence of the court.

2. A court has jurisdiction to punish an act in contempt of court, though such act is also an indictable offense.

POTTER, C. J.: Upon the petition of Belle Fisher, claiming to be unlawfully imprisoned in the jail of Carbon county by the sheriff of that county, a writ of habeas corpus was allowed by one of the justices of this court, and made returnable before the court. It appears that one Martin W. Foley was being tried in the district court of Carbon county, on the cbarge of murder, from the 9tb day of July, 1900, to the 14th day of that month, inclusive. On tbe last-named date the connty and prosecuting attorney presented an information charging that the petitioner herein on the 12th day of July, 1900, pending the trial of the Foley case, corruptly approached two of the witnesses for the state and attempted to bribe them to testify falsely in said case, and praying that she be ordered to appear and sbow cause why she should not be punisbed for contempt of court. And the court found the defendant to be in contempt of court and fined her in tbe sum of five hundred dollars and costs and confinement in the county jail of Carbon county, at Rawlins, for the term of six months.

The first and principal contention on behalf of tbe petitioner is that her alleged conduct did not constitute a contempt, and hence that the court was witbout jurisdiction in the premises, and its judgment void. In her petition plaintiff

charges that her offense was not alleged or proven to have been committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the procedure of the court; and the argument of her counsel is based upon that assumption. It is contended that an attempt to bribe a witness out of the presence of the court is not a contempt of court, but was punisbable at common law as a crime, and was so punishable by statute in this state. It is not claimed that the court is withont jurisdiction to punish as a contempt an act also indictable or punishable as an offenee against the criminal laws, but it is conceded tbat the fact that an act is otherwise indictable does not deprive the court of the essential power to punish the same act as a contempt. It is, however, insisted that the offense charged against petitioner is not, and never was, a contempt of court. Conpsel admit that the legislature cannot, by making an act indictable, interfere with the inherent authority of a court to punish for contempt; but they argue that neither the legislature nor the court is authorized to declare a crime to be a contempt which bas always been punishable as a distinct, indictable offense at common law. It is practically conceded, if not in so many words, that the attempt to bribe a witness in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to interrupt its orderly procedure, would amount to a contempt of court. In respect, therefore, to the question of jurisdiction, the contention of plaintiff's counsel is confined to the proposition that the acts charged to have been committed did not occur in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to interfere with its procedure. The information against the petitioner alleged that her conduct complained of occurred at the city of Rawlins, in the county of Carbon. The court was in session in that city. But the atidavits attacbed to the information, and upon which it was founded, were more specific. The witness Isberwood deposed that he was corruptly approached by the petitioner near the court house, and that sbe proposed that if he modify his testimony in the Foley case, and swear falsely from the evidence given by him at a former trial, she would pay him $300. According to the affidavit of the witness Stafford, he was approached by petitioner in the court bouse. and the proposition made to him was that if he would change bis testimony she would do the right thing, -"meaning that she would compensate": the witness for so changing bis testimony and swearing falsely. On the hearing, Isherwood, being asked to state the circumstances of the attempt of the petitioner to bribe bim, testified as to the place where it occurred as follows: “At that time I was supposed to be upstairs as a witpess. I went downstairs to go to the water-closet. When I got down past the corner, Miss Fisher called me, and I stopped." He then related the conversation between the petitioner and himself, in wbich the attempt was made to induce him to change his testimony. Stafford testified that he was approached by the petitioner in the hall of

the court house, downstairs, in the corridors be ciple laid down in that case, no doubt can exist tween the two doors, and at that place the prop but that the offense of petitioner, within legal conosition was made to him to give false testimony. templation, was committed in the presence of the Both parties were in attendance upon the court as court. The bribing of witnesses or jurora strikes witnesses for the state in the criminal case already at the very foundation of judicial determination, mentioned. Miss Fisher denied having made any and the court would be shorn of much of its corrupt propositions to either witness, but in giv efficiency in the administration of justice if it ing her version of the affair she fixed the place of possessed not the power to protect itself against the conversation as "downstairs bere," and again, such reprehensible conduct as the corrupt inter

there in the stairway." She stated that several ference with witnesses in the very precincts of persons were present, and some talk ensued, I the court, where the witnesses assemble in obediwhich she related, and that Dr. Stafford turned | ence to subpæna, and while waiting to be called aside in the little hallway, and she had some fur to give their testimony. Witnesses are not ther conversation with him there. She admitted, usually required to remain constantly in the court however, having met Isherwood at the corner of room, and if they are in the hallway, witness the court house, or "in" the corner, but denied room, if any, or about the building, within easy having attempted to induce him to swear falsely. I call, the purpose of their attendance is ordinarily

In the case of Ex parte Şavin, 131 U. S. 267, 9 observed, until they are required to take the Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, 33 L. Ed. 150, it appeared that stand. When in the building in obedience to the petitioner had been adjudged guilty of con- subpæna or order of court they are in attendance tempt for having improperly endeavored to deter upon the court and subject to its order, and we a witness from testifying in a case in behalf of are not inclined to adopt so technical a constructhe government; the offense of petitioner having tion of the law as would permit a person to stabeen committed once in the jury room tempora- tion himself witbin the building wbere the court rily used for witnesses, and once in the hallway of is held, and there attempt to corruptly influence the court building, immediately adjoining the | the testimony of witnesses, without fear of being the court room. The question arose whether the punished for contempt. The argument of couninisbehavior occurred in the presence of the sel that such conduct would not be in the prescourt. It was held that it did. The court said: ence of the court, or so near thereto as to inter

The jury room and hallway where the misbe fere with its procedure or obstruct the adminis. havior occurred were parts of the place in which tration of justice is, to say the least, unreasonable. the court was required by law to hold its sessions.'? It is, moreover, opposed not only by the decision And after quoting the following from Bacon, in of the United States Supreme Court in the Savin bis essay on Judicature: “The place of justice is case, but by other eminent authorities. In Sindott an hallowed place; and therefore not only the v. State, 11 Lea, 281, it was held that one was bench, but the footpace and precincts and pur guilty of contempt who approached the deputy prise thereof, ought to be preserved against scan sberiff, wbile engaged in summoning jurors, with dal and corruption,”--the court said further: a list of names of persons whom he endeavored “We are of opinion tbat, within the meaning of to induce the deputy to summon as jurors, and the statute, the court, at least when in session, is also approached another deputy and sought to present in every part of the place set apart for its induce him to summon a certain person upon the own use, and for the use of its officers, jurors, and panel, to the sheriff unknown, although neither witnesses; and misbehavior anywhere in such of said acts were committed in the court house or place is misbebavior in the presence of the court. in the actual presence of the court. The statute * * If, while Flores was in the court room, provided that a “willful misbehavior of any perwaiting to be called as a witness, the appellant son in the presence of the court, or so near had attempted to deter him from testifying on thereto as to obstruct the administration of jusbehalf of the government, or had there offered tice,” is a contempt, and also that an abuse of or him money not to testify against Gougon, it could unlawful interference with the process or pronot be doubted that he would bave been guilty of ceedings of the court is a contempt. The court misbehavior in the presence of the court, although said: "The attempt of defendant to induce the offthe judge might not have been person cers of the court to summon as jurors in the parally cognizant at the time of what occurred. ticular case then to be tried certain persons speciBut if such attempt and offer occurred fied by him, in preference to others, or, in common in the hallway just outside of the court room, or parlance, to 'pack a jury,' was an unlawful interin the witness room, where Flores was waiting in ference with the proceedings of the court, within obedience to the subpona served upon him, or the purview of said provisions, and was a conpursuant to the order of the court, to be called | tempt for which he was punishable by the coart. into the court room as a witness, must it be said Nor was it material that it was not within the that such misbehavior was not in the presence of court house, or in the immediate presence of the the court? Certainly not." The Savin case is court." In the case of Ex parte Brule (D. C.), strongly in point, the facts being very much the 71 Fed. Rep. 943, the accused was charged with same as in the case at bar-certainly as to the at- having, with the use of money, persuaded another tempt upon the witness Stafford. Upon the prin- | to conceal and hide himself and absent himself

from court to avoid the service of a subpena cumulative, the remedy under the last-named npon him, and thereby prevented the govern section for the acts covered thereby is sole and ment from using him as a witness upon a crimi exclusive, and deprives the court of the power to nal trial. He was adjudged guilty of contempt, punish such acts as for a contempt. Under simand it was held that tbe act was punisbable as a ilar statutory provisions the contrary was held in contempt, though it was done at the residence of Hale v. State, 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 N. E. Rep. 199, the witness, at some distance from the court 36 L. R. A. 254, upon facts already alluded to in house, in the town where the court was sitting, referring to that case. The statute in question on the ground that it constituted a misbehavior so (section 5088) provides that “whoever corruptly near to the court as to obstruct the administration or by force, or threats or threatening letters, enof justice. The learned judge stated in the opin deavors to influence, intimidate or impede any ion that, bad the particular misbehavior charged juror, witness or officer in the discharge of his occurred anywhere witbin the building where the duty; or by threats or force obstructs or impedes, court was held, it would have been misbehavior in or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due adthe presence of the court, and added: “If it is a ministration of justice in any court of this state, contempt to bribe a witness in front of the court shall be fined not more than one thousand dolbouse door, is it not a contempt to attempt to do iars, to which may be added imprisonment in the the same thing on the street opposite the court county jail not more than sixty days nor less than building, or four blocks away? Is not the result ten days." The act of the petitioner clearly the same? Is not the motive of the accused the amounting to a contempt, bearing in mind the same? What difference does it make whether the general rule above adverted to (that making an act attempt was made on the ground owned by the indictable as an offense does not invade the power United States, or at the residence of the witness of a court to punish for contempt), we are not in the same town, four blocks, or about one disposed to hold that petitioner was liable to be quarter of a mile, away from the court building? proceeded against only under section 5088. The In one case the misbehavior would be construed power to punish for contempts in facie curice is to be in the presence of the court, and in the inherent in all courts of superior jurisdiction. other '80 near thereto as to obstruct the adminis Legislative authority is not required for its existtration of justice,' and the statute, in clear lan ence or exercise. In this state, indeed, there is guage, is made to apply to both cases." See, no statute conferring the power in such a case as also, Er parte Cuddy, 131 U. S. 280, 9 Sup. Ct. the one at bar. We are clearly of the opinion Rep. 703, 33 L. Ed. 154; Montgomery v. Judge, that section 5088 is not exclusive, and that, where 100 Micb. 436, 59 N. W. Rep. 148; Langdon v. the act amounts to a contempt, it may be punJudges, 76 Mich. 358, 43 N. W. Rep. 310; Hale v. ished as such. State, 55 Ohio St. 210, 45 N. E. Rep. 199, 36 L. R.

Note-Contempt of Court.--1. Power to Punish A. 254; Steube v. State, 3 Ohio C. C. 383. In

for Contempt Where Other Remedies Exist. – The Hale y. State the party adjudged to be in con

power to punish for contempt cannot be abridged by tempt had, by promising to pay the expenses of

the legislature, at least over courts created by the a witness who had been subpæpaed, induced her constitution. This is the general rule. Hawes v. to leave the county, and thereby prevented her State, 46 Neb. 150; Matter v. Sbortridge, 99 Cal. 526, appearance as a witness at the trial of a criminal | 37 Am. St. Rep. 78; Hale v. State, 55 Obio St, 210; case. The act was held to be a contempt of Cheadle v. State, 110 Ind. 301, 59 Am. Rep. 199; In re court, and punishable as such, notwithstanding

Chadwick, 109 Mich. 588. It would seem to follow, that it was by statute constituted a distinct crim

a fortiori, tbat if the legislature cannot directly

abridge the power of a court to punish for contempt, inal offense, and that no express provision of the

it certainly cannot do so indirectly by making tbe statute made the statutory punishment cumula

offense indictable, or makirg provision for other tive. It is well settled that, if an act is a contempt remedies. It is therefore well settled that the of court, the fact that the same act is indictable indictability of an offense is no bar to its summary as a criminal offense does not take away the ju punishment as for contempt. United States v. Debs, risdiction of the court to punish the offender as

158 U. S. 664, 64 Fed. Rep. 724; Ex parte Acock, 84 for a conteinpt. We understand this general

Cal. 50; Burke v. Territory, 2 Okla. 499; Pledger v. pripeiple to be conceded, while it is contended

State, 77 Ga. 242; In re Hughes (N. Mex. 1895), 43

Pac. Rep. 692; State v. District Court, 52 Minn. 283; that a different rule governs this case. We do not

Matter of Griffin, 98 N. Car. 225; Cartwright's Case, think so. The case comes fairly within the gen

114 Mass. 230. And it is a general rule that a eral doctrine, and we apprehend tbat enough has contempt, though punisbable by criminal prosecution been said to render further discussion unneces of any character, is also punishable in eontempt sary.

proceedings. United States v. Debs, 158 U. S. 664; It is insisted that as section 5087 of the Revised

Ex parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267; State v. Faulds, 17 Statutes, providing for the punishment as a mis- |

Mont. 140, 42 Pac. Rep. 285; In re Cartwright, 114

Mass. 230; Ex parte Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 26 Pac. demeanor of one guilty of disobeying a subpæna,

Rep. 914. Tbus, in Ex parte Savin, supra, it was expressly states that it shall not prevent summary

held that while the same offense, wbich constitutes proceedings for contempt, while section. 5088 the contempt, is embraced in Rev. St. U.S., sec. 5399, contains no such reference to contempt proceed and punishable by indictment, that method of proings, and is not, therefore, expressly rendered cedure is not conclusive, and the court may proceed summarily as for contempt. Some earlier cases held bribery. These statutes also provide punishment. to a contrary rule, denying the right of the court to We have seen, however, that such statutes, althougb punish for contempt where acts were otherwise they may define the offense, do not exclude the juris punishable. State v. Blackwell, 10 S. Car. 85; State diction of the court to punish them as for contempt. v. Blocker, 14 Ala. 450; In re Kerrigan, 33 N. J. Law, Ex parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep.699. More. 344.

over, the court is not limited by the definition of the 2. Misconduct "in Presence ofCourt.- What con: offense by any statute but is allowed a large discretion stitutes “in the presence of” the court, in order to in decreeing what acts are a contempt. Thus, merely give court jurisdiction to punish the offense for an attempt to create a belief that a juror or other contempt, is sometimes a difficult question, and is officer of the court baving active duties to perform best settled by reference to the authorities. Thus, in upon a trial can be bribed, is a contempt of court. Ex parte Savin, 131 U. S. 267, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699, it was Little v. Suate, 90 Ind. 338, 46 Am. Rep. 224. But we held that attempts by persuasion and offer of money must look to the decided cases for a clear solution of to deter a witness duly subpænaed from testifying in this question, as of nearly all questions under conbeball of the government, such attempts being made tempt proceedings, as the decision in such proceed. in the witness room, immediately adjacent to, and in ings is controlled not so much by strict rules as upon the hallway of, the court room, and while the court the nature and facts of each particular case. Prewas in session, constitute misbehavior in the presence vepting the attendance of witnesses or inducing them of the court. so, also, it bas been held that a con to keep away from the trial is, of course, contempt of tempt in the piazza of the court house, into wbich the | court. Tbus, it has been held that bribing a person, windows of the court room open, is a contempt in the who is known to be a material witness, to remain presence of the court. United States v. Carter, 3 away from court, is a contempt of court, whether ('ranch (C. C.), 423. But a peculiar case arose such person has been subpædaed or not, and thoagb recently in Missouri, where a commitment for con. pupisbable by indict lient is also punisable tempt "for making a murderous assault upon a as a contempt committed by misbehavior **80 person named, in the court's presence," was held to near" the court "as to obstruct the administra. be illegal where the evidence showed that the assault tion of justice." In re Brule, 71 Fed. Rep. 943. On occurred in the rotunda, outside of the court room, the other hand, bowever, it has been held that a and that because of a swinging door, and the density supersedeas, issued in blank as to the names of the of the crowd, and the nearsigbtedness of the judge, parties to the case, is not a valid process upon which he could not bave seen the occurrence, and that his to prosecute a rule for contempt, charging one with subsequent inquiries showed that he did not, in fact, attempt to bribe anotber to warn witnesses to avoid see it. Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477, 30 S. W. Rep. service of such subpænas. Dobb v. State, 65 Ga. 158. In tbis case, bowever, there were other vital 272. So also it has been held that until a party bas defects in the record on wbich the court laid great been supbæpaed to attend before the grand jury, or stress in nullifying the commitment. In the case of a subpæna bas been issued for him, it is not a conCommonwealth v. Stuart, 2 Va. Cas. 320, it was held tempt of court for a person to induce him to absent that the making of an affray and riot, accompanied bimself in order that he may not be subpænaed. with great poise and turbulence, at a tavern, near the McConnell v. State, 46 Ind. 298. In Michigan, bow. court house, where the judge of the court was, and of ever, the rule is the same as is in the federal courts. which the rioters were advised, during a nigbt of the A recent case in that state bolds that under term, but the court being tben in recess, is not a How. Ann. St., sec. 7257, providing a punisbment for contempt of court. On the other hand, however, it

one who uplawfully detains a witness while going to has been beld tbat misbehavior in the court room, in or remaining at the court wbere the suit is noticed the presence of the judge, after the adjournment of for trial, it is not necessary, in order to constitute court from one day to the next, but while the judge the offense described, that the witness should have is attending to business, is punisbable as a contempt. been subpænaed. Montgomery v. Palmer, 100 Mieh. Baker v. State, 82 Ga. 776, 9 S. E. Rep. 743, 14 Am. St. 436, 59 N. W. Rep. 148. In that case one L inquired Rep. 192. Judges, however, are not proof against of the deputy sheriff wherber be bad a subpæns for rough handling or insult when not acting in their ju. ope B, as a witness, and was told tbat be had not. dicial capacity, and they may not use their preroga. Early the next morning L gave B money, and B im. tives as judges to avenge themselves for private mediately left the state. B's testimony was material. wrongs or insults. For instance, to demand loudly and

The court held that there was a sufficient basis on arrogantly of a justice merely engaged in writing a let. which to issue a writ requiring L to show cause why ter requiring his official sigoature, money wbich bad he should not be punished for contempt of court. been collected by him, does not authorize a punish Merely assisting a person to get away, where it is ment for contempt. Such writing will admit of tbeir own desire and free will, is not contempt; there interruption. Wiosbip v. People, 51 III. 296. So, I must be pursuasion or coercion on the part of the de. also, an insult to a parish judge, acting as auctioneer, fendant. Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196. For other is not a comtempt of him in his judicial capacity, and cases holding it to be contempt to prevent the attend. cannot be so punished. Detournian v. Dormenon, 1 i ance of witnesses in court, see McCartby v. State, 89 Mart. (La.) 138. See also Fitler v. Probasco, 2 Browne Tenn. 513, 15 S. W. Rep. 737: Commonwealtb v. (Pa.), 137, wbere it was hed that a justice cannot pun Feely, 2 Va. Cas. 1; In re Whetstone, 9 Utab, 156, 36 ish summarily for a contempt while he is acting Pac. Rep. 634; Haskett v. State, 51 Ind. 176. ministerially and not judicially.

Approacbing jurors or witnesses in court for the 3. Tampering with Witnesses and Jurors as Con purpose of influencing their action is, of course, a most tempt of Court-Bribing.--Statutes in nearly every flagrant contempt of court: Cuddy, Petitioner, 181 U. state specifically provide that any person, giving or S. 280; Little v. State, 90 Ind. 338; Langdon v.Judges offering any witness, or person about to be called as of Wayne Circuit Court, 76 Mich. 358, 43 N. W. Rep. a witness, anything of value to influence bis testi. 310; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445. In the famous mony, or to keep him from testifying, is guilty of

case of United States v. Burr, Fed. Cas. No. 14,6921.

it was held that a offer of a sum money to a witness preface: “In preparing an American treatise on the to remove bis objections to going witbout the juris. Law of Contracts at the beginning of the twentieth diction of the court to testify was not necessarily an century, the author bas striven to present that branch attempt to contaminate the source, and a contempt of the law in its true relation, both to the history of of court in which it was administered. In Beattie v. the past and to the probable developments of the People, 33 Ill. App. 651, it was held that an attorney future; for the lawyer must be both bistorian and who knowingly procures evidence with the intention prophet. Such a presentation of the law must, above of deceiving and obstructing justice is guilty of con. all things, be accurate; but the accuracy must often tempt. So also, in Gibson v. Tilton, 1 Bland (Md.), be rather that of tbe artist who paints & landscape, 352, 17 Am. Dec. 306, it was held that though parties tban that of the mathematician who states the equa. could not be prosecuted for a false oath taken in tion of a curve." In other words, as we would more another state, yet, if they knowingly use testimony clumsily express it, it is a bird's eye view of the law supported by such spurious oath, they may be pun. of contract, and as such, is very accurately and very ished as for contempt for practicing an imposition cleverly prepared. We desire also to most bighly upon the court.

commend the mechanical execution of this work,-it

is certainly the acme of the printers' and binders' CORRESPONDENCE.

arts. Nothing in the way of a law book has so de

lighted our eye than this very neat little volume, ANARCHY-A NOVEL SUGGESTION FOR ITS SUPPRESSION.

with its clear, beautiful type, its elegant paper, and To the Editor of the Central Law Journal:

its rich binding in the best quality of law sheep.

Bound in one volume of 410 pages, and published by I have read your editorial appearing on page 241,

Little, Brown & Co., Boston, Mass. in regard to the assassination of President McKinley, ip wbich you undertake to point out some remedies,

HUGHES ON ADMIRALTY. and in this connection I wish to suggest tbat, while The general excellencies of the Hornbook Series of aparchism is, to some extent, respectable in Russia, legal text books are rapidly becoming generally recthere is no place for it or any part of it in the United ognized as the standard authorities for the class States; and that there is possibly a remedy, and I am i room and the student. They possess the most im. inelined to the opinion that congress, under the con: portant requisite of a student's text book-& clear stitution, bas a right to define treason. It is fully synthetical arrangement of the entire subject matter demonstrated tbat the death penalty bas no terrors free from all complicating and unnecessary details, for persons who tbiok that they can become martyrs | To the practitioner, of course, the latter are not only by giving up their life for a cause, and tbat the death useful, but necessary,- for his use, the treatment must penalty is not a success as a deterrent of crime. be analytical. But the student of law before be atThere is a large party of respectable adherents to the tempts to look at the cases in detail must see them as last part of the above sentence. There is no punish. & whole gathered together by a master band under ment 80 severe as exile. This, I think, is not confined the great principles of the particular subject under to human beings, but extends to the animal kingdom. treatment. Tbis is the object of the Horybook Series, Any ban can determine the severity of such punish of which the treatise on Admiralty by Robert M. ment by examining himself. I would therefore sug. Hughes, M. A., is a most excellent example. In tbis gest as a remedy for anarchism in tbis country,-de. particular instance, bowever, Mr. Hughes' work is of portation. Not such as Russia ipflicts, because it is interest to tbe general practitiover as well, as it is the too severe. We have recently acquired some very only modern treatise on tbis very important subject, habitable islands, and my suggestion is: 1st, that and is handled by one thorougbly conversant with congress define treason by statute, and that the both the theoretical and practical features of bis subdefioition include that whoever, in any way, utters ject. The practitioner, therefore, as well as the or proclaims that there should be no law or no gov. student, is to be congratulated on this addition to the ernment, shall be guilty of treason; and tbat 2d, wbo. ranks of legal literature. One volume of 510 pages, ever is guilty of treason (in addition to the penalties bound in sheep. Published by the West Publishing now prescribed) tbat the penalty sball be deporta. Co., St. Paul, Minn, tion to an island (far at sea) where no laws, rules or regulations shall be inaugurated or maintained. And further that no representative of this country sball

HUMORS OF THE LAW. be there further than sufficient soldiers to see that the above rule is maintained. This, I think, would

An editor in Platte county printed an item which result in this class of people being placed in a com.

stated that “the man who was hugging the hired girl munity such as they advocate, and it is wholly imma.

had better stop or bis name would be published." terial to all the decent people whether they or any of

In a few days about twenty five citizens paid up their them survive or not, except that they do not starve

subscriptions and told the editor to pay no attention to death. The advocate of anarchism so long as he

to the foolish stories goin' around."— Freemont keeps his mouth sbut, or his pen from paper, is, in

Tribune. my opinion, absolutely harmless. I tbink the above scheme would give him an opportunity to demon. strate bis form of government, and also at tbe same

WEEKLY DIGEST. time protect all law-abiding people from bis influence.


Weekly Dixost of ALL the Carront Opinions BOOK REVIEWS.

of ALL the state and Territorial Courts of HARRIMAN ON CONTRACTS.

Last Resort, and of all the Federal Court.. The object and characterization of this work is well \ ALABAMA, 2, 14, 16, 34, 36, 38, 47, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, summed up in the opening paragraph of the author's 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 83, 81, 85, 86, 97, 98, 99, 104,

« ПредишнаНапред »