Vol. I.]

LEGAL ANECDOTES.

[No. 3.

JUVENALIS, a widow, complained to Theodoric, king of the Romans, that a suit of hers had been in court three years, which might have been decided in a few days. The king being informed who were her judges, gave orders that they should give all expedition to the poor woman's cause, and in two days it was decided to her satisfaction. Theodoric then summoned the judges before him, and inquired how it was that they had done in two days what they had delayed for three years? "The recommendation of your Majesty," was the reply. "How?" said the King; "when I put you in office, did I not consign all pleas and proceedings to you? You deserve death for having delayed that justice for three years which two days could accomplish ;" and at that instant he caused their heads to be struck off.

By the laws of the Goths it was made penal to say of a man that he was gouty. They thought it hard enough that a man should have to suffer such a torment without being twitted about it.

A GENTLEMAN who was severely cross-examined by Mr. Dunning was repeatedly asked if he did not lodge in the verge of the court. At length he answered that he did. "And pray, sir," said the counsel, "for what reason did you take up impertinence of dunning,our residence in that place?" "To avoid the

answered the witness.

WHEN SERGEANT COCKLE was on the northern circuit he once told a witness that he was very saucy, and followed up the remark by asking: Pray, what sauce do you like best?" "Any sauce but Cockle sauce,'

66

was the reply.

dined at a certain house. particular when he had "Recollect it," replied roast shoulder of mut

AT a recent trial in Westminster Hall, an Irishman, who was a witness, identified the date of a transaction by his having Being asked how he could recollect that day in dined constantly at the same table for months. Pat; "how could I forget it? the dinner was a ton, in July, and there were no potatoes!

AT a late assize in Limerick a boy was brought forward as a witness for the prosecution in a case of murder. He appeared so young and so ignorant, that the judge thought it necessary to examine him as to his qualifications for a witness, when the following dialogue took place:

Q. Do you know, my lad, the nature of an oath? A. An oath! No. Q. Do you mean to say that you do not know what an oath is? A. Yes.

Vol. I.]

LEGAL ANECDOTES.

[No. 3.

Q. Do you know anything of the consequences of telling a lie? A.

No.

Q. No! What religion are you of? A. A Catholic.

Q. Do you never go to mass? A. No.

Q. Do you never see your priest? A. Yes.

Q. What did he say to you? A. I met him on the mountain one day, and he bid me hold his horse, and be

to me.

Judge. Go down; you are not fit to be sworn.

THE oath used among the Highlanders in judicial proceedings under the feudal system contained a most solemn denunciation of vengeance in case of perjury, and involved the wife and children, with the arable and the meadow land of the party who took it, all together in one abyss of destruction. When it was administered there was no book to be kissed, but the right hand was held up while the oath was repeated. The superior idea of sanctity which this imprecation conveyed to those accustomed to it, may be judged from the expression of a Highlander, who at a trial at Carlisle had sworn positively in the English mode to a fact of consequence. His indifference during the solemnity having been observed by the opposite counsel, he was asked if he would confirm his testimony by taking the oath of his own country to the same. "Na, na," said the mountaineer; "ken ye not thar is a hantle o' difference 'twixt blawing on a buke, and domming ane's ain saul?”

MR. T. O'MEARA, an Irish attorney well known for his conviviality, wit, and good nature, met at the house of a friend an Englishman of rank and fortune, whom he, according to the hospitable custom of that time, invited to his house in the country; and at the close of the visit the Englishman left Ireland with many expressions of obligation for the kindness and attention he had received. Shortly after, O'Meara for the first time visited London, and one day saw his English acquaintance walking on the opposite side of Bond Street; so he immediately crossed over, and declared, with outstretched hand, how delighted he was to see him again. The gentleman was walking with two friends of highly aristocratic cast, and dressed in the utmost propriety of costume; and when he saw a wild looking man, with soiled leather breeches, dirty top-boots, not over clean linen, nor very closely-shaven beard, striding up to him with a whip in his hand, and the lash twisted round his arm, he started back, and with a look of cold surprise, said, "Sir, you have the advantage of me." "I have sir," said O'Meara, looking at him coldly for a moment, and then walking away, "and, by Heaven, I'll keep it!"

THE AMERICAN LAW TIMES.

NEW SERIES. APRIL, 1874.- VOL. I., No. 4.

DIGEST OF CASES

PUBLISHED IN EXTENSO IN LATE ISSUES OF AMERICAN LEGAL PERI

1. RULE AS TO NAVIGATION. That the rules of navigation must vary according to the exigencies of business and the wants of the public. The rules which would be applicable in a harbor where the business was light, and the passage of vessels not liable to be impeded, would be inapplicable in a great thoroughfare like the East River. In the former, it might be that vessels could with safety run across the mouths of ferry slips in going to or from their wharves, while in the latter such navigation would necessarily be hazardous. Steamship Favorita v. Union Ferry Co., Int. Rev. Rec., March 14, 1874.

Vol. I.]

2. DEMURRAGE. such cases, reported

The case of the Cayuga, allowing demurrage in 14 Wallace, 378, adopting the views of the circuit judge of the second circuit, as stated in 7 Blatchford, 385, adhered

to. 1b.

3. SALVAGE. -The master and owners of the tug Astoria claimed and received $5,000 from the barkentine Falkinberg and her cargo for salvage service on the Columbia River, which sum was paid by the owners of said barkentine and cargo in full of such services after a general and particular average of the loss, but the crew of the tug did not at the time make any formal claim for salvage, or expressly authorize the master or owners to make one for them, but afterwards brought suit against the latter for their proper share of said salvage: Held, that the master and owners of the tug have the general charge of the claim for salvage, and that the bill presented by them in the name of the "steam tug Astoria and owners for salvage services," must be construed as covering the services of the crew, who, together with the vessel and its machinery, constituted the effective agency that performed the salvage service. Roff v. Wass, Int. Rev. Rec., March 21, 1874.

4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SALVAGE MONEY depends largely upon the sound discretion of the judge, guided by the circumstances of the case; and where the decree of the court below is not manifestly erroneous in this respect, it will be affirmed. Ib.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 1, 2.

AMENDMENT.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 1.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. INJUNCTION. PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY. Injunction issued restraining defendants from collecting any rents from real estate in which the bankrupts have any legal or equitable estate, and appointment of a receiver. Keenan v. Shannon, Leg. Int., March 13, 1874.

2. AN INSOLVENT MAY BORROW MONEY AND PUT UP COLLATERALS. — There is nothing in the bankrupt law which interdicts the loaning of money to a man in Darby's condition, if the purpose be honest and the object not fraudulent. And it makes no difference that the lender had good reason to believe the borrower to be insolvent, if the loan was made in good faith without any intention to defeat the provisions of the bankrupt act; that in a season of pressure the power to raise money may be of immense value to a man in embarrassed circumstances. With it he might be saved from bankruptcy, and without it financial ruin would be inevitable. If the struggle to continue his business be an honest one, and not for the fraudu lent purpose of diminishing his assets, it is not only not forbidden but is commendable, for every one is interested that his business should be preserved, that neither the terms nor policy of the bankrupt act are violated if collaterals be taken at the time the debt is incurred. Tiffany v. Boatman's Savings Institution, Int. Rev. Rec., March 14, 1874.

3. PREFERENCE AT WHICH LAW DIRECTED. That the preference at which this law is directed can only arise in case of antecedent debt. To

Vol. I.]

DIGEST OF CASES.

[No. 4.

secure such a debt would be a fraud on the act, as it would work an unequal distribution of the bankrupt's property, and therefore the debtor and creditor are alike prohibited from giving or receiving any security whatever for a debt already incurred if the creditor had good reason to believe the debtor to be insolvent; but the giving securities when the debt is created is not within the law, and if the transaction is free from fraud in fact, the party who loans the money can retain them until the debt is paid. 16.

4. HOMESTEAD. - A bankrupt is entitled to a homestead exemption in property occupied by him as a homestead, even though he had previously waived his homestead rights in favor of a particular creditor. In re Poleman, Int. Rev. Rec., March 21, 1874.

5. WAIVER OF HOMESTEAD RIGHTS. Such waiver only applies to persons claiming under the instrument in which the waiver was made, and does not enure to the benefit of the assignee or other creditors. Ib.

6. HOMESTEAD. — In Illinois, where the equity of redemption is less than one thousand dollars, the property should be set aside by the assignee as a homestead; where it exceeds that sum, the assignee should sell the property and pay the bankrupt one thousand dollars in cash from the proceeds, unless the property is susceptible of division, so as to set apart the homestead. Ib.

BANKS.

1. CONTRACT TO PAY MORE INTEREST THAN ALLOWED BY CHARTER, VOID. That a provision in a bank charter prohibiting it from taking more than a given rate of interest, avoids a contract reserving a greater rate; that a contract to do an act forbidden by law is void, and cannot be enforced in a court of justice. Tiffany v. Boatman's Savings Institution, Int. Rev. Rec., March 14, 1874.

2. DISCOUNTING BY BANK. That mere accommodation paper can have no effective or legal existence until it is transferred to a bona fide holder. It follows then that the discounting by a bank at a higher rate of interest than the law allows of paper of the character above mentioned made and given to the holder for the purpose of raising money upon it, in its origin only a nominal contract, on which no action could be maintained by any of the parties to it, if it had not been discounted, is usurious, and not defensible as a purchase. 16.

3. ACT OF JULY 13, 1866. Under the act of Congress of July 13, 1866, amending the internal revenue law, savings institutions are liable to tax on both the interest paid to depositors and on all undistributed sums carried to the surplus fund. Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, nt. Rev. Rec., March 21, 1874.

See USURY, 1.

BILLS AND NOTES.

See BANKS, 2; PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 4; PROMISSORY NOTE; SURETY; USURY, 3.