that although women were prohibited from pleading causes for others in the court of imperial Rome, they might plead their own, and frequently received a legal education. He says:

"Valerius Maximus tells us that there was a certain lady named Cafrania, wife of a Senator, who was addicted to verbal onslaughts of so violent a character upon a certain Prætor whenever she appeared before him, that in selfdefense and in the interest of justice he made an edict forbidding all females from pleading for others in the courts of Rome. Valerius calls this disbarred lady the most shocking names, which we deem it prudent not to translate. This prætorial inhibition found its way into the Pandects, where the reason for its promulgation is also stated in language quite as denunciatory of the embargoed Cafrania as that above referred to. [See Dig. 3, 1, § 1, in Galisset's "Corpus Juris Civilis. "] It would seem, however, that, notwithstanding this ban upon female pleaders, the study of the law was regarded as a becoming pursuit by educated women in the reign of Justinian. Testimony of this fact is to be had in the following epigram by Agathias upon the death of his sister Eugenia, translated by Lord Neaves in his notes to the fourth edition of Lord Mackenzie's Roman Law':

'Blooming in beauty and in song before,

Skilled in the splendid truths of legal lore,
Here hid in earth Eugenie's seen no more.
Venus, the Muse, and Themis, at her tomb,
Cut their fair locks, in sorrow for her doon.'"

A PRIVILEGED CLERIC. In our youth we disported ourselves in writing about the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Privileges of the Clergy in England. Just now there comes to us, in the Law Times," the following account of a highly privileged ecclesiastical person:

"There is a specially privileged clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of Scotland who is a member of the College of Vicars-Choral of Hereford Cathedral. He draws his salary with regularity, but declines to intone the prayers or to assist in chanting the Litany in the cathedral. The Dean and Chapter attempted to cite him before Lord Penzance in the Court of Arches, but in a considered judgment, delivered before hearing the parties, that learned and leisured and wellpaid functionary held that the clerk of the Scottish Church was not subject to the Clergy Discipline Act of the Church of England, even though installed in an English benefice. And now the clerk is engaged in trying to prohibit the Dean and Chapter of Hereford from exercising a domestic discipline over him by citing him before their own body. This he objects to because (1) they already promoted the suit against him in the Arches Court, and (2) they cannot, he says, proceed against individual vicars-choral, but only against the body in its corporate capacity. A Divisional Court has granted a rule nisi to settle this nice question of ecclesiastical ethics."

As Ralph Waldo Emerson asked concerning pie, so we are led to ask, what is this person for? A man

in a boat must row, fish, or cut bait, and we are curious to know what use can be extracted from this obstinate clerk. More especially do we desire to know why the kingdom should be taxed to support this luxurious official and to pay for his lawsuits.

66

ESCAPE.

An account in the English newspapers

of a recent dash for liberty by a Dartmoor prisoner will remind readers of the opening scene in Dickens' Great Expectations," and of that piteous episode in "The Silence of Dean Maitland." This prisoner panted for freedom, but he failed to achieve it because he could not steal any "pants" to take the place of his telltale striped nether garments. He tells the story in his artless way as follows:

"I did take a swig or two out of some of the decanters of port wine and other Christmas drinks about, and I get two 'alves of plum pudden and a lot of breast of turkey stowed away in the pockets of that parson's overcoat which I stole in the first house I entered. But it must be a queer country as lies around that prison; why, there don't seem a single man to live there as 'as got more than one pair of pants to his legs, and it seems as 'ow they must all sleep with them under their pillows. Why, I was in one bloke's bedroom while he was in bed, and, s' help me, I think he must have been sleeping with his trousers on!"

This poor fellow should have reflected that perhaps the wives wore them, and have searched among the feminine apparel. It would certainly have been so in this favored country.

EARLY RISING..

66

The ancient sawyer said:

'Early to bed and early to rise

Makes a man healthy and wealthy and wise." But it doesn't do anything of the sort. Take for a test that class of men who follow this maxim most literally, the farmers, and it certainly is not true of them. They are not especially healthy they are very apt to be insane, and no wonder. They are never wealthy. And when we say that we think they cannot claim any superiority in wisdom, we are putting it very mildly and respectfully. Of course the Chairman, whose favorite theory of passing vacation is to loaf and lie down, cannot be expected to advocate early rising, whatever he may think of early going to bed. He thinks it very disrespectful to get up before the sun. That is the most unhealthful time of day, when all Nature is reeking with night-damp, and, so to speak, has not brushed her teeth. A walk on an empty stomach and before the sun has done his beneficent office is a distressful and unwholesome exercise. But the Chairman is becoming an involuntary early riser, the victim of a species of insomnia. His trouble strongly resembles

that of a man who once called to consult a great authority on massage, residing in Carlsbad. He said he could not sleep. The doctor said: 66 You don't look like a man troubled with insomnia. How much

66

66

contrive to sleep?" do you Well, I generally sleep from about eleven till seven." Eight hours! isn't that enough?" "Well, but Doctor, I can't sleep in the daytime! That is just the difficulty with the Chairman he can't sleep after six o'clock, A. M. The cause is the crowing of neighboring cocks. His neighbors in the rear keep roosters, some of which are expert in crowing and others are learning. The efforts of the latter remind him of the first attempts of a boy to whistle. It must be allowed, however, that these beginners are showing improvement, under assiduous practice, although they begin so early that their voices are hoarse with the dampness. One of these youngsters has a peculiar circumflex accent in his note that is extremely annoying. It is probably a birthmark. He is always the first on deck, and persists until he rouses his sleepy elders. He evidently regards that as smart, in this respect resembling a human baby. Then these birds hold dialogues with others near and far. Professor Garner, perhaps, could tell what they say, but we cannot, for their discourse is as unintelligible to us as one of those polyglot and penticostal operas in which the performers sing respectively in Italian, French and German. The whole performance is the more annoying to us because we never eat eggs, and we try hard never to eat a rooster. This untimely cock-crowing marks the foolishness of early rising, for the cock is notoriously a brainless fowl and the silliest animal in creation just the creature to get up early and disturb his neighbors' sleep. We have had very serious thoughts about an endeavor to suppress this nuisance, and have wondered whether the courts would listen to an application for an injunction, or whether we have a right to take the law into our own hand, as in the case of a nocturnally howling dog, and suppress these feathered pests by some species of seductive poison. Have residents of a large city any right to keep roosters, or are we one of those abnormally nervous and sensitive persons for whom the law makes no allowance? We only wish we could shoot straight, or that the classic custom of sacrificing cocks to Esculapius might be restored, for there are many physicians living in our neigborhood.

mind and body and causing loss to her husband, when continued after his repeated warnings and protest, renders the seller liable to him for the damages which he sustains on account of the loss of her services. The Court said:

"The action is a novel one. With the exception of the case of Hoard v. Peck, 56 Barb. 202, which, in its most important aspects, resembles the one before us, we have been able to find no precedent in the English common-law courts or in the courts of any of our States. It does not follow, however, that because the case is new the action cannot be maintained. If a principle upon which to base an action exists, it can be no good objection that the case is a new one. It is contended for the defendants, though, that there is no principle of the common law upon which this action can be sustained, and that our own statutory law gives no such remedy as the plaintiff seeks in this action for the wrong done to him by the defendants, and that the novelty of the action, together with the silence of the elementary books on the subject-matter of the complaint, while not conclusive, furnishes strong countenance to their contention. It is claimed for the defendants that while in the abstract such facts as are stated in the complaint would make the parties charged guilty of a great moral wrong, there would be no legal liability incurred therefor. It was argued for the defendants that there was no legal obligation resting upon themselves not to sell the drug, as is alleged, to the plaintiff's wife, or upon the wife not to use it; that many of the ancient restrictions upon the rights of married women had been repealed by recent legislation, or modified by a more liberal judicial construction; that a married woman was ordinarily free to go where she would, and that the husband could not arbitrarily deprive her of her liberty, nor use violence against her under any circumstances, except in self-defense, and that, if he could not restrain her locomotion and her will, he could not prevent her from buying the drug and using it; that the wife's duty to honor and obey her husband, to give to their children motherly care, to render all proper service in the household, and to give him her companionship and love, was a moral duty, but that they could not be enforced by any power of the law, if the wife refused to discharge them. But notwithstanding the claim of the defendants, we think this action rests upon a principle, -a principle not new, but one sound and consistent. The principle is this: Whoever does an injury to another is liable in damages to the extent of that injury. It matters not, whether the injury is to the property, or the person, or the rights, or the reputation, of another.' Story, J., in Dexter v. Spear, 4 Mason, 115. And also in the third book of Blackstone's Commentaries (chap. 8, p. 123) it is written: Wherever the common law gives a right, or prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy, by action.' A married woman still owes to her husband, notwithstanding her greatly improved legal status, the duty of companionship, and of rendering all such services in his home as her relations of wife and mother require of her. The husband, as a matter of law, is entitled to her time, her wages, her earnings, and the product of her labor, skill and industry. He may contract to furnish her services to others, and may sue for them, as for their loss, in his own name. And it seems to be a most reasonable proposition of law that whoever

willfully joins with a married woman in doing an act which deprives her husband of her services and of her companionship is liable to the husband in damages for his conduct. And the defendants owed the plaintiff the legal duty not to sell to his wife opium in the form of large quantities of laudanum as a beverage, knowing that she was, by using them, destroying her mind and body, and thereby causing loss to the husband. The defendants and the wife joined in doing acts injurious to the rights of the husband. From the facts stated in the complaint, the defendants were just as responsible as if they had forced her to take the drug, for they had their part in forming the habit in her, and continued the sale of it to her after she had no power to control herself and resist the thirst; and that, too, after the repeated warnings and protests of the husband. There is no difference between the principle involved in this action and the principle upon which a husband can recover from a third person damages for assault and battery upon his wife. That assaults and batteries are made criminal offenses makes no difference, the foundation of the husband's suit being, not for the public offense, but for damages, — compensation for the injury which he has sustained on account of the loss of his wife's services. The sale of the laudanum by the defendants to the plaintiff's wife, under the circumstances set out in the complaint, was willful and unlawful, and the husband's injury is just as great as if his wife had been disabled from a battery committed on her, although the unlawful act is not indictable.

"The defendant's counsel also insisted that the selling of laudanum is a lawful business, that it is on the same footing as the sale of spirituous liquors unrestrained by the statute. It is true that there is no statutory provision in North Carolina prohibiting the sale of laudanum as a beverage or as a medicine, but it does not therefore follow that a sale of it under all circumstances is lawful. As is well said in Hoard v. Peck, 56 Barb.; Its lawfulness or unlawfulness depends upon the circumstances of the sale, and the uses and purposes to which it is to be applied.' It is lawful to sell laudanum as a medicine. It is also lawful to sell spirituous liquors as a beverage upon the dealer's complying with the license laws, except in the cases prohibited by statute. Certainly no fair inference can be drawn from this that damages may not be recovered from one who knowingly and willfully sells or gives laudanum or intoxicating liquors to a wife, in such quantities as to be attended by such consequences to the wife as are set out in the complaint in this action. But laudanum is well known to be a poisonous drug. As a beverage, it cannot be drunk without injury to the body, affecting the health of the physical and moral powers, and this is known to most persons of ordinary intelligence and to all druggists. The defendants knew, taking the complaint in this appeal to be true, that the plaintiff's wife did not buy the laudanum for medicine. They knew that she was buying it as a beverage; that she was violating her duty to her husband in destroying her health, and thereby rendering herself unfit as a companion for him, and to render proper service in the household. They assisted her and encouraged her, for gain, with the means of doing all this in face of his protests and warnings. The habit she had formed was the direct result of the use of the drug, which the defendants sold to her in such large quantities,

and they knew it, and persisted in it, although repeatedly warned and entreated by the husband not to do so. His honor erred in sustaining the demurrer. It ought to have been overruled."

We think it is correctly remarked by the editor of the L. R. A. in connection with this decision: To avoid the maxim Volenti non fit injuria the decision must rest upon the fact that she had become incapable of rational action in the matter, so that the injury to her is like an injury to property or to a person non compos mentis." But that leaves the question of injury to the husband unanswered. It may be plausibly argued that the principle involved is similar to that in cases of seduction or enticing away another's servant, in which the willingness of the seduced or of the servant is no defense. In the New York case one judge dissented, observing: "The plaintiff's wife was responsible to no human tribunal for her conduct."

66

The wrong in this case, if it could be regarded as a legal wrong, was committed by the wife of the plaintiff, and not by the defendant." We are by no means certain that the case is as clear against the plaintiff as we thought it, many years ago, when we wrote of it : —

"Next we shall come down on them for selling our wives patent medicines and female specifics. The corset-maker shall suffer, and the shoemaker who puts small heels on our wives' boots. In those States where lotteries are lawful, let the lottery dealers beware of selling too many tickets to married women. I am by no means certain that the doctrine may not be reasonably invoked against revival preachers, who drive weak women mad by powerful discourses, and against the advocates of woman's rights, who alienate our wives' affections from us by holding up the glittering prospect of the ballot."

DETENTION OF WITNESSES. Solomon said: "There is nothing new under the sun"; and the old hymn says: To Thee there's nothing old appears, Great God, there's nothing new." It is the same to a considerable extent in the law, so far as principles are concerned. Legal novelty chiefly consists in applying the old principles to new conditions. So doubtless the decision in Hull v. County Commissioners, 82 Md. 618; 51 Am. St. Ref. 484, that a witness confined in prison by the government, to secure his attendance, simply because of his inability to procure security for his attendance, may recover his per diem fee for attendance for every day of his confinement, will strike most practitioners as novel, although perfectly right. But it seems to be old law, for the Courts cite precise precedents from the Federal Circuit Court and those of Michigan, Missouri and Iowa. Of course this doctrine would not apply to those States which refuse witness fees in criminal

cases.

The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetiæ, anecdotes, etc.

LEGAL ANTIQUITIES.

LORD BACON, in his advice to Mr. Justice Hutton, says: "You should be a light to jurors to open their eyes, but not a guide to lead them by their noses."

FACETIE.

ONE of the grand jury lately in session at Belleville got off rather a bright thing the other day, though it was some time before his colleagues in the study of crime tumbled to it. They were coming through the back yard of the Belleville House, and stopped to watch a butcher, who was at work on a hog. One of them made the remark, "We've just been investigating the case of a man charged with assault with intent to kill, and here is a man who kills with intent to salt."

"OH," said the lady lecturer, "I have had such a delightful conversation with the gentleman you saw bow to me as we left the train. He told me that the emancipation of woman had been his life work for ever so many years." "Yes," said the woman who had come to meet her, "that is so. He has been a divorce lawyer ever since I could remember."

A LAWYER brought a suit against a rich corporation for a man of good standing in the community, and of rather exceptional attainments. In the course of his argument, he declared in a loud voice, for the purpose of gaining the sympathy of the jury:

"Gentlemen of the jury, who are the parties to this important litigation? Why, on the one side. there is a powerful corporation, with an overflow

ing treasury, and on the other side " (pointing to his client, who was seated in the bar), "there is my poor, simple, uneducated client."

"Did you win your suit?" inquired a friend of the plaintiff a few days after.

"Yes," was the reply, "I won my suit; but I shall never employ that lawyer again. He called me a fool, and the jury believed it."

NOTES.

THE bill providing a limited indemnity for the loss of registered letters has become a law. The maximum of indemnity on any single registry is fixed at ten dollars. There is every reason for supposing that the registered mail business will increase, as a direct consequence of this new law.

FOUR Buffalo reporters attended a prize-fight in a professional capacity, and the "mill" being raided by the police, were promptly captured with the party. Judge King, of that city, before whom they were brought, released them, declaring that it was a principle of law, as well as of common sense, that three kinds of men were permitted to go anywhere without blame - doctors, clergymen and reporters.

THE English Criminal Statistics for the year 1895 fortify the view which we have consistently advocated, and in which the majority now concur, that excessive punishment defeats its own object. Crime actually declines in proportion as the sentences are merciful. These are the words of this interesting record: "This remarkable decrease in crime goes on pari passu with a still further reduction in the length of sentences. In 1895 the number of sentences of penal servitude has fallen from 956 to 803, and the sentences of imprisonment for one year and upwards from 765 to 762."

Some curious facts concerning crime and suicide disclosed by these statistics may be mentioned.

Heat aggravates crime; cold reduces it. Also, the decrease of crime goes on simultaneously with a period of special distress and poverty. Suicides decline in very cold weather. Drowning is the common method, which explains this. Drunkenness is highest in April and December lowest in April. - The Law Times.

THE oldest will extant, unearthed by Professor Petrie at Kahum, Egypt, is at least four thousand

years old. In its phraseology, the will is singu

larly modern in form, so much so that it might be admitted to probate to-day.

THE Oklahoma senate has agreed upon the absolute separate school measure as it passed the house, providing for separate school districts, separate school boards and separate funds for white and colored children.

THERE are 52 penitentiaries and over 17,000 jails in the United States. They cost $500,000,000 to build. Over 900,000 persons were incarcerated in the year 1892. The criminal expense to the country is not less than one hundred millions annually. Current Literature.

PROF. CHRISTOPHER G. TIEDEMAN, LL. D., has resigned his chair in the University Law School, New York, the resignation having been tendered to the Council of the University in the early part of March, to take effect at the close of the current college year. Prof. Tiedeman was appointed in the fall of 1891, when the law school was reorganized under the leadership of the late Austin Abbott.

IN Kansas a law has been proposed which meets with favor and which promises to employ convicts without displeasing the representatives of organized labor. This law would divide the convicts into three classes, one of which would be employed in digging irrigating ditches, another in road-building, and another in raising farm products for the State institutions — the most vicious alone to be kept at the State Prison, where they would be engaged in breaking rock to be used in building State macadamized roads.

THERE is in the strong rooms of one of the oldest private banks in London a large quantity of jewels, plate, and other valuables which were deposited for safe custody by French refugees shortly before the outbreak of the Revolution. Several of the depositors claimed their belongings after the coup d'état, but the present deposits are still awaiting claimants.

THE law class of the Syracuse University has adopted the following college yell :

Agency, contracts, bills and notes,
Equity, pleadings, sales and torts,
Domestic relations; Raw! Raw! Raw!
Syracuse 'Varsity,
College of Law!

MISS ELISE BROWN, a dressmaker, recently sued Rev. Frederick Hetling, Vicar of Christ Church, London, for the recovery of a sovereign which she had put into the collection-box while in a fit of temporary aberration. Occasionally such lapses came over her, she said. For two years she did not go to church, but at length she decided to attend Mr. Hetling's early communion service, and it was there that the aberration of judgment fell on her and led her to put into the plate a sovereign, which she now wished to recover, as she had changed her views on ecclesiastical polity. The lady told the judge that she did not believe she would have given the sovereign had she been in her right mind. The judge said that what was given for charity or for church purposes could not be recovered, and he accordingly gave judgment for the defendant.

A NEGRO had stolen a hog from Mr. Henderson of Tennessee, and as witness Mr. Henderson took the stand, and the justice of the peace began: "Is your name Tom Henderson?" "Of co'se," was the reply. "Didn't reckon I'd bin changin' names, did yo', Squar'?" "Live in this yere town?" "Sartin, I do. That's a powerfully foolish question to ask me." "Reside in this yere county and State, I take it?" continued the Squire. "Suck my hide, but of co'se I do!" exclaimed the plaintiff. "I was bo'n right yere and never wandered fifty miles away, and yo' know it and the laws knows it." "On the fifth day of this month were yo' in possession of a certain spotted