Page images
[ocr errors]

paved way for teams and sidewalks for footmen, gut- The following order was made in the Court of Aptered and curbed between the two, has shade trees of peals December 8, 1880: twenty years' growth, or more or less, standing in the It is Ordered, That this court adjourn on Thursday, sidewalk near the gutter. Have the adjoining pro- | Dec. 23, instant, at 1:30 P. M; that it convene on Monprietors any right to the shade trees standing on the day, the 17th day of January, 1881, at 10 o'clock, A. M., sidewalks, which the village authorities are bound to

at the court room in the oid Capitol, at Albany; that a

new calendar be made for that term, upon which the respect? Can the village directors, under the power clerk will place only causes in which notices of argugiven them by statute, cut the shade trees down, for ment, with proof of service for that term, are filed the sake of widening the wagon track, and contracting with him on or before the 3d day of January, 1881; the sidewalk, or to straighten a bend in the gutter that on and after Monday, the 20th day of December, Will you, or some of your keen thinkers, who are more

instant, for the rest of the term now running, no day

calendar will be made up, but causes will be called, familiar with village rights, answer?

beginning on that day with the first one in order of EGBERT WHITAKER.

general calendar number, not before that disposed of, SAUGERTIES, N. Y., Dec. 1, 1880.

and the last paragraph of Rule XXI will be applied

and enforced. JUSTICES' Costs.

The paragraph referred to reads as follows: “When Editor of the Albany Law Journal :

any cause shall be regularly called for argument, and The specific fees of justices of the peace for issuing no other disposition shall be made thereof, the appeal summonses, granting adjournments, entering judg- shall be dismissed without costs, and an order shall be ments, etc., are reasonable and should not be changed; entered accordingly," etc. but the law of costs, as applicable to these officers, need amendment in two respects:

NOTES. First. The limitation of costs should be removed. As Mr. Throop rightly says in his Justices' Manual (p. THE current number of the Law Magazine and Re96):

“The justice of the limitations of the amount of the costs is questionable. As costs in a justice's court articles on Jurisprudence and the Amendment of the consists of actual and necessary expenses only, there Law, by Lord Advocate McLaren; Private Bill Legisseems to be no sound reason why the successful party lation; Professor Holland's “Jurisprudence" and should not always recover the full amount thereof." Codification - - a very acute review by Arthur Tilley;

Second. A reasonable per diem trial compensation Foreign judgments - assumed jurisdiction over ponshould be established. The fee of 75 cents for the trial resident aliens, by F. T. Piggott. Our countrymen of an issue of fact is grossly inadequate; nor does the fare very well in this number; there is a very compli. fee for swearing witnesses compensate for this inade- mentary review of Mr. Thompson's Liability of Stockquacy. The latter fee in one day may amount to but holders in Corporations, and the editor, in speaking of 20 cents; it often does not exceed 50. For trying an the prima facie right of a fugitive to undisturbed and issue of fact where the defendant appears, the justice protected asylum, says, “the true doctrine, we hold, is should receive $2 a day — the same compensation as that laid down by Dr. Spear in his able and lucid work that which town clerks, assessors, commissioners of

on Extradition." The Criminal Law Magazine and highways, and overseers of the poor receive for their the Southern Law Journal and Reporter are comservices. In the trial of a case, justices work as hard mended, and the editor also has a good word for ouras these officers, and frequently more hours iu a day; selves, and there is no good reason why they should not be as well paid. The specific fees are generally for services The New York Tribune's London correspondent, rendered on days other than that on which the trial speaking of the late Chief Justice Cockburn, says: takes place and therefore do not pay for the trial ser- Nobody disputes the brilliancy and variety of Cockvices. Nor would this proposed change greatly in- burn's talents, but the bar never recognized him as a crease the cost of litigation in justices' courts. Most great lawyer, and a powerful sect of society always contested cases are finished in one day. To the cost of denied him admission. Right Hon. Sir George Jes. these it would add but $1.25; and in those cases that sel, Master of the Rolls, perhaps the ablest lawyer of should continue more than one day litigants would not this generation, in pronouncing the formal panegyrio object to allowing the justice $2 for each day's extra in court, conspicuously omitted to praise his judicial service. When sitting as a court of special sessions

qualifications. Several judges during the week comthe justice receives $1 for each day necessarily spent plained severely of the indiscriminate laudation of the in the performance of his duty, and in civil cases, when press, criticising Cockburn's absence of sound learntrying an issue of fact where the defendant appears, ing, his excessive love of display and eagerness to prehe should likewise be allowed a reasonable per diem side at sensational cases. Society remembers against compensation,

Cockburn some early scandals and the life-long irreguI hope that our lawyers who are honored with seats

larity of his domestic relations; nevertheless, it is true in the Legislature will bring about the needed changes that he was exceedingly welcome in many influential herein indicated.


circles, and will be long remembered for his shining SHERBURNE, N. Y., Nov. 26, 1880.

conversational gifts.”—The English trial calendars

must be in a bad way. The Daily Telegraph says they NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. are “abnormally conjested." The Telegraph must

have a medical student reporting for it. THE

Dec. 7, 1880: Judgment affirmed with costs - Woodruffs v. Impe- Supreme Court rules will be held in this city on the

A convention of the judges for the revision of the rial Fire Insurance Company of London; Lockwood v. Quackenbush; Long y. Bussell; Hand' v. Kennedy; 15th inst. It is important to have a thorough revision Burt v. Smith.- -Judgment reversed and new trial of the rules, and the judges would be glad to reoeire granted, costs to abide event- Palmer v. Brady.- suggestions for amendments, which may be sent to Order affirmed with costs - Bedford v. Fields.

Hon. Wm. L. Learned, of this city, any time before Orders of General Term and Special Term reversed

the 15th inst. In this way defects in the present rules and motion granted with costs of appeal to General Term and this court - Veeder v. Baker. -Motion to

might be pointed out which otherwise might escape set aside judgment denied with $10 costs – Veeder v.

attention, and thus the judges may be materially Baker.

aided in their labor.

THE.collowing decisions were handed down Tuesday,

The Albany Law Journal.

[ocr errors]

which he now and then eyed a passer-by- singularly insignificant in appearance, might have been

met wending his way along Waterloo-place and ALBANY, DECEMBER 18, 1880. Piccadilly. Those who, an hour before, had seen

the lord chief justice of England in his court, ar

rayed in wig and ermine, and listened to him, as, CURRENT TOPICS.

in a soft musical voice, he rendered some knotty

point of law as clear as crystal, would hardly have UR highly-esteemed contemporary, the Kentucky recognized him as the same man." We can scarcely

Law Reporter, advocates a change in the jury sys- accept Truth's estimate that in him “the bench has tem, which has at least the merit of originality. It lost its brightest ornament,” and it is evident that says: “We would suggest that twelve jurors be the bar and the bench do not think so. appointed by the governor for each Circuit, and paid a reasonable salary for a fixed and definite term. This jury would travel about the Circuit in the same

The late lord chief justice was unquestionably a

lomanner as the Circuit judge; they would generally

man of great versatility of talents, acuteness, be totally disinterested, and holding office by ap

quence, and social charms.

But these very accompointment would never decide for political purposes.

plishments unfitted him for liis high office, and he By experience such a jury could learn to sift the

had not the profound knowledge of law which his true from the false testimony in almost every in

post demanded. We need seek no further than our stance; by practice they would become expert in

last English legal exchanges for proof that he was weighing testimony and judging of the credibility

that very dangerous character, an advocate on the

bench. The Law Journal says: "His charges to of witnesses. Their verdicts would be sooner rendered, and more often in the right, for their judg. juries were masterpieces of popular oratory; and

there was little chance for the most skillful counsel ments would be the result of the deliberations of twelve men, whose every day business and study duty to sum up against him,” And the Law Times

if the lord chief justice became convinced of the was such as to make their judgment peculiarly quick and accurate in such matters." This seems

says: “It is equally certain that, whilst he carried to us the most impolitic change ever suggested. It

on to the bench this high code of honor, the very seems to demand unanimity, and yet relies upon ex

loftiest sentiments which could animate a judge, pertnes3. This being so, one man would do just as

the deepest regard for his office, and the keenest well as twelve, and better, because he would never

sense of its responsibilities, he never thoroughly disagree; therefore, the judge would be the better

shook off the passion of the advocate. If there is arbiter of fact than the standing jury. Deliver us

one fault which can be laid to his charge as a judge, from all professional jurymen, and all professional

it is that with too rapid a judgment he formed his arbiters of fact ! Give us the system of verdicts in opinion, basing it frequently upon the evidence and civil cases pronounced by nine of twelve jurors, and bearing of particular witnesses. The opinion formed, a selection of jurors like that obtained by a struck

it was put forward in the summing up with the art jury, and we will ask nothing better. We simply

of the advocate, repressed more or less, but still need greater intelligence in jurors, and a less arbi- perceptible, and occasioning sometimes the imprestrary demand for unanimity.

sion that the scales of justice had not been held with that absolute impartiality which is essential to

the strict administration of the law. No one who It is to be hoped that the mental likeness of the has attempted the perusal of the summing up in late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn drawn by the the Tichborne case -- an effort which the lord chief London Truth is not a faithful portraiture. Accord- justice subsequently published separately, and which ing to this representation he had not a profound in itself forms a volume — can fail to perceive with knowledge of the law; but " he possessed a univer- what dexterous skill the case for the defense was sality of genius;” “he never hesitated to bring home broken down. And again, no one who followed to a jury his opinion;' “ he let no one forget he was the course of that trial, with its frequent conflicts chief justice of England;” “he talked often of the between the bench and the bar, could honestly say cases he was trying or likely to try;" he defended that the outrageous conduct of the prisoner's counduelling. In short, he was a man of the world, sel was altogether unprovoked. If any doubt had “equally at home on the deck of a yacht, at the ever existed in the minds of the jury, the demeanor dinner table of artists, in the drawing-room of and the summing up of the chief justice told them fashionable beauties.” An opinionated, garrulous, very plainly that they must convict.” This same fighting, sailing, flirting, dilettanti chief justice is passion for advocacy led him into unseemly pamhardly to our taste. A “universal genius” on the phlet or newspaper controversies with Mr. Taylor on bench is generally extremely objectionable. His the law of the res gesta, arising upon his lordship's physical portraiture by the same journal is mor ruling in the Bedingfield case, and with Lord Penengaging: “At about half-past four or five o'clock zance, on the law of the jurisdiction of the courts on most afternoons when the courts were sitting in in respect to ecclesiastical questions, in which the Westminster, a little old man, shabbily dressed, ultimate court overthrew the judgment which his and — except for the bright piercing glance with l lordship had delivered and defended.

Von. 22.- No. 25.


It is apparent that this extraordinary man must were only 418 during the four years above referred be ranked with Erskine and Brougham rather than to above £500; whilst the number involving £500 with Holt and Mansfield. And yet he sinks below and under was 4,366; and, of this last number, the level of the first-named great men, because his 3,764 were cases in which no more than £200 was life was never perfumed and dignified by devotion recovered. These statistics will assist in forming to reform in his chosen profession. His name is not a conclusion as to the comparative amount of law imperishably connected with the championship of a business in England and New York. broader liberty and the advocacy of a humaner justice. He even was strenuously opposed to the re- Mr. Banks, the late publisher of our Court of forms in procedure which have recently taken place Appeals Reports, has been executing a swan song in England. The Solicitors' Journal remarks: “We upon the expiration of his contract. His contract may be permitted to regret that the failings inci-expired at noon of the 14th inst., and anticipating dent to such a temperament and genius as his, to a loud call for volumes at the contract price of 48 the long possession of a great and dignified office, cents, he cleverly shut up his store for a day and a and to advancing age, did not suffer lim to unite half beforehand, and thus laughed at the crowds of his name with the promotion of a reform the prin applicants. But as his contract obliged him to ciples of which he had long advocated.”

keep the reports always on sale at a book-store in

this city, under a penalty of $100 for every failure, In short, while we recognize in this brilliant man recoverable by the persons aggrieved, and as about many of the attributes of genius, and do not regard fifty persons vainly called for the books, it is appahim as altogether out of place on the bench, yet it rent that the laugh will soon be on the other side of must be confessed that he was not of the material his mouth. This conduct is of a piece with the deout of which chief justices ought to be made. The fiant, disobliging, and lawless manner in which Mr. Law Times justly observes: “A vast deal of first- Banks has always carried himself in respect to this rate work is done in our courts of first instance contract, and shows the wisdom of the State officers without much recourse to profound legal knowl-in awarding the new contract to other persons. It edge. The complicated interests of modern society would hardly seem that Mr. Banks can have his genconstantly call for the exercise of such talents as eral business interests much at heart, or can have those of the late lord chief justice, and a judge any desire to retain the respect of his legal customwho possesses such talents, whilst he cannot justly ers and the public. be called great in the recognized acceptation of that term, attains to a position upon the bench unique and brilliant.” And we unhesitatingly subscribe to

NOTES OF CASES. the same journal's opinion that although the late

N Foose v. Whitmore, ante, 475, our Court of Apoccupied his seat, he never attained to the standard

peals construed the following provision in a

will: “I do give and bequeath all my property, of Holt and Mansfield.

both real and personal, to my beloved wife, Mary, A correspondent of the London Law Journal has only requesting her at the close of her life to make

such disposition of the same among my children made up the following instructive table showing the

and grandchildren as shall seem to her good.” They number of actions for trial in the common-law di

held that the wife took the testator's estate in fee visions; and the state of the business of the courts

and that the qualifying sentence would not be conin the years ending respectively October 31, 1876,

strued to create a trust. A similar question was 1877, 1878, and 1879:

passed upon in Williams v. Worthington, 49 Md. 572.
The testator provided as follows: “It is my will

and desire, and I hereby devise and bequeath all my Number of remanets from previous

property, real, personal, and mixed, to my dear

756 1,128 Number of actions entered for trial.. 2, 276 2,318 2, 146 2, 301 wife, E. A., and her heirs and assigns forever, and

it is my request and desire that my said wife, E. A., Total

2, 812 3,074 3,274 2, 975 should by last will and testament devise and be

queath all of said property at her death, remaining Number of actions tried..

953 1,372 1, 100

in her possession, to my friend, B. W., and to E.
Number of remanets by order.
Number of remanets for want of time

W., their heirs and assigns forever, share and share to try.... Number of actions withdrawn..

859 1,017

alike.” Held, that this did not create any trust, Number of actions struck out..

but that E. A.'s estate was absolute. This was put Standing over for further consideration of judgment....

on the ground that the subject of the supposed

trust was uncertain, as it was only of property “reThe foregoing, we infer, were at Westminster maining" at the wife's death. The court said: “If alone. During the same period the number of ac- the precatory words had related to the whole of the tions tried or otherwise disposed of at Assizes was property devised to her, there are many decided as follows: 1876, 1,285; 1877, 1,413; 1878, 1,330; cases which hold that the words indicating the ulti1879, 1,243. During the same period, of 4,784 ac- mate disposition which the testator desired her to tions tried at Westminster and on Circuit, there make would charge the property with a trust in

lord chief justice emulated the great men who had IN



















favor of the persons named, notwithstanding the United States Naval Academy of Annapolis. The gift to her was in see. Such are the cases of Wace | letter was addressed to the defendant as an officer v. Malları, 21 L. J. Ch. 355; Gully v. Cregoe, 24 in the United States Navy, and then in command Beav. 185, and Shovelton v. Shovelton, 32 id. 143." and authority over the Naval Academy, to be by In Bland v. Bland, 2 Cox's Ch. Cas. 349, the devise him transmitted to the secretary of the navy. The was in fee, with the request as to the said prem- official regulations of the navy required the defendises, or so much thereof as he (the devisee) shall ant to “state his opinion in writing, by indorsement stand seized of at the time of his death." Lord or otherwise in relation to” the resignation. The Hardwicke decided that the previous devise in fee plaintiff argued that the indorsement was conseimported a power in the devisee to diminish the quently absolutely privileged, and the court below property. He said: “It was the same as if the tes- so held, but this was reversed on appeal. The court tator had said: I leave it to you to dispose of it as adopted Starkie's enumeration of communications you think fit, but I will be glad if you will give so absolutely privileged, although false, malicious, and much as you can spare, so and so.” In Wynne v. without reasonable or proper cause, as follows: Hawkins, 1 Bro. Ch. 179m, the will provided : “And Communications made in the course of judicial as I shall leave behind me, over and above the said proceedings, whether civil or criminal, and whether legacies, only sufficient for a decent maintenånce by a suitor, prosecutor, witness, counsel, or juror; for my loving wife, Mary Wynne, by whose pru- or by judge, magistrate or person presiding in a dence and economy I have saved the greatest part judicial capacity of any court or other tribunal, of the fortune I shall die possessed of, not doubting judicial or military, recognized by and constituted but that she will dispose of what shall be left at her according to law; and so also communications made death to our two grandchildren; all the rest and in the course of parliamentary proceedings, whether residue," etc., “I give and bequeath to my loving by a member of either House of Parliament, or by wife, Mary, hereby constituting and appointing her petition of individuals who are not members, presole executrix." The lord chancellor said: “If the sented to either House or to a committee thereof." intention is clear what was to be given, and to Folkhard's Starkie, $ 688, and authorities there whom, I should think the words “not doubting' cited. The court said: “Beyond this enumeration would be strong enough. But where in point of we are not prepared to go. The doctrine of absocontext it is uncertain what property was to be lute privilege is so inconsistent with the rule that a given, and to whom, the words are not sufficient, remedy should exist for every wrong, that we are because it is doubtful what is the confidence which not disposed to extend it beyond the strict line the testator has reposed, and where that does not established by a concurrence of decisions.” Citing appear the scale leans to the presumption that he Cook v. Hill, 3 Sandf. 349, and disapproving the demeant to give the whole to the first taker.” In cision in Dawkins v. Lord Paulett, L. R., 5 Q. B. 94, Pushman v. Filliter, 3 Ves. 7, the testator gave the but approving the dissenting opinion of Cockburn, residue, etc., of personal estate to his wife, “desir- C. J. The court declined to consider the question ing her to provide for my daughter, Anne, out of whether the government could have been compelled the same, as long as she, my said wife, shall live, to produce the paper in question, because it was voland at her decease, to dispose of what shall be left untarily produced. They held, however, that the among my children, in such manner as she shall indorsement had a qualified privilege, because made judge most proper.” It was decided that no trust in the line of duty, and that there could be no rewas created by the will in favor of the children ; covery without proof of malice or want of probathat it was an absolute gift of the property to the

ble cause.

Citing Garrett v. Dickerson, 19 Md. 450; wife, to be disposed of to any use she might think White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 267; and Dickson v. Earl fit, subject only to a trust in favor of the testator's of Wilton, 1 F. & F. 419, which is quite in point. . daughter Anne. In Wilson v. Major, 11 Ves. 204, See leading article, 21 Alb. L. J. 325; and id. 103. there was an absolute gift to the wife,“ upon full On a new trial a few days ago a verdict was directed trust and confidence that she would make proper

for defendant. distribution of what effects may be left in money,

In State ex rel. Soares v. IIebrero Congregation," Disgoods, or otherwise, to his (testator’s) children."

persed of Judah,” 30 La. Ann. 205, it was held that It was held that the wife took the absolute estate,

a mandamus will not lie to compel a religious society unfettered by a trust. See, also, Cowman v. Harri

to restore to membership one who had been expelled son, 17 L. & Eq. 290, the language of Lord Eldon

by a decree of the legally constituted church judiin Tibbits v. Tibbits, 19 Ves. 656; and Anderson v.

catory, on account of an alleged violation of some Hammond, 2 Lea, 281; S. C., 31 Am. Rep. 612.

law of the society; and the ground that such restora

tion is necessary to enable him to enjoy the right of An interesting discussion of the question of privi- sepulture acquired by him as a member is premaleged communication arose in the Maryland Court of ture. The court remarked: “The entire separation Appeals, at April term, 1880, in Maurice v. Worden. of Church and State is not the least of the eviThe action was for a libel alleged to have been con- dences of the wisdom and forethought of those who tained in an indorsement written by the defendant made our National Constitution. It was more than upon a letter of the plaintiff tendering his resigna- a happy thought -- it was an inspiration. But altion of the position of teacher of French in the though the State has renounced all authority to con

66 The

trol the internal management of any church, and speed v. East Haddam Bank, 22 Conn. 530, holding refuses to prescribe any form of church government,

the doctrine of the principal cases. Church, C. J., it is nevertheless true that the law recognizes the delivered the prevailing opinion, in which Waite, existence of churches, and protects and assures J., concurred; Ellsworth and Hinman, JJ., distheir right to exist, and to possess and enjoy their sented; Storrs, J., having tried the cause below, powers and privileges. Of course wherever rights did not sit. Church, C. J., said: “These instituof property are invaded, the law must interposetions have so multiplied and extended within a few equally in those instances, where the dispute is as years, that they are connected with, and in a great to church property as in those where it is not, and degree influence, all the business transactions of it also takes note of, but does not itself enforce, the this country, and give tone and character, to some discipline of the church, and the maintenance of extent, to society itself. We do not complain of church order and internal regulation. The law this; but we say, that as new relations from this does not assume, and will not declare, that a par- cause are formed and new interests created, legal ticular religious association is more truly the church principles, of a practical rather than of a technical than another, but each and all of them are permitted or theoretical character, must be applied.” “The to make their own regulations, and to enforce them views of the old lawyers, regarding the real nature, in the manner each has provided for itself.” In power, and responsibilities of corporations, to a Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, the court say: great extent, are exploded in modern times, and it law knows no heresy, and is committed to the sup- is believed that now these bodies are brought to the port of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. same civil liabilities as natural persons, so far as The right to organize voluntary religious associa- this can be done practically, and consistently with tions to assist in the expression and dissemination their respective charters. And no good reason is of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals discovered why this should not be so; nor why it for the decision of controverted questions of faith cannot be done, in a case like this, without violatwithin the association, and for the ecclesiastical ing any sensible or useful principle." “But after government of all the individual members, congre- all, the objection to the remedy of this plaintiff gations, and officers within the general associations, against the bank in its corporate capacity, is not so is unquestioned. All who unite themselves to such much that as a corporation it cannot be made rea body do so with an implied consent to this gov- sponsible for torts committed by its directors, as ernment, and are bound to submit to it. But it that it cannot be subjected for that species of tort would be a vain consent and would lead to the total which essentially consists in motive and intention. subversion of such religious bodies, if any one ag- The claim is, that as a corporation is ideal only, it grieved by one of their decisions could appeal to cannot act from malice, and therefore cannot comthe secular courts and have them reversed. It is of mence or prosecute a malicious or vexatious suit. the essence of these religious unions, and of their This syllogism or reasoning might have been very right to establish tribunals for the decision of ques- satisfactory to the schoolmen of former days; more tions arising among themselves, that those decisions so, we think, than to the jurist who seeks to disshould be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cog- cover a reasonable and appropriate remedy for every nizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism wrong. To say that a corporation cannot have moitself provides for.” On the point of the right of tives and act from motives, is to deny the evidence sepulture, in the principal case, the case of Guibord of our senses, when we see them thus acting, and was cited; upon which the court remarked: “It is effecting thereby results of the greatest importance, sufficient to say, in disposing of this part of the every day. And if they can have any motive, they complaint, that Guibord was dead, and the object can have a bad one; they can intend to do evil as of the proceeding in his case was to procure the in- well as to do good. If the act done is a corporate terment of his body in that part of the Montreal one, so must the motive and intention be.

In the cemetery which was consecrated, whereas the re- present case, to say that the vexatious suit, as it is lator has happily no present need of enforcing his called, was instituted, prosecuted, and subsequently claim to burial anywhere, and non constat but that sanctioned, by the bank, in the usual modes of its before he does need it, he will have his ban of ex- action; and still to claim that although the acts communication removed, and be restored to full were those of the bank, the intention was only that fellowship in the congregation."

of the individual directors, is a distinction too re

fined, we think, for practical application.” LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS FOR The contrary view was taken in Owsley v. MontACTIONS INVOLVING MALICE, gomery & West Point Railroad Co., 37 Ala. (N. S.)

560. The court there said: “It was supposed at has been held in two recent cases that a corpo- one time that an action for a tort would not lie

[ocr errors]

prosecution conducted by its agents. Williams v. since exploded, and the tendency of the law in our Planters' Ins. Co., 57 Miss. 759; Carter v. Howe Ma- day is to extend the application of all legal remechine Co., 51 Md. 290. The same was held in dies to corporations, and to assimilate them, as far Wheeless v. Second Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt. 469; S. C., as possible, in their legal duties and responsibilities, 25 Am. Rep. 783.

to individuals." “But it seems to be the law, that The leading case on this precise question is Good- inasmuch as a malicious motive and a criminal in

« PreviousContinue »