Notes of Recent Cases. The taking of evidence by commission is not permissible, and the manner of eliciting proof is more restricted. The jury, without any departure from the strict letter of the law or any misapprehension of the evidence, might acquit in a criminal action, and upon the same proof and with equal propriety, render a verdict for the amount of the penalty. People r. Rohrs, 49 Hun, 150, I N. Y. Supp. 672, People v. Stevens 13 Wend. 341, People t'. Meakin, 133 N. Y. 214, 30 N. E. Rep. 828, Blatchley v. Moser, 13 Wend. 215, Rollins z>. Breed, 54 Hun, 485, 8 N. Y. Supp. 848, and Behan r. People, 17 N. Y. 516, are cited. It is said that a contrary principle has been maintained in Coffee v. United States, 16 U. S. 436, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437, 29 L. Ed. 684, but that decision is said to have been limited in Stone v. United States, 167 U. S. 178, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127. Justices Williams and Stover, dissent. The majority opinion also holds that where a statute punishes an act as a mis demeanor and also imposes a penalty, it is not necessary to obtain a conviction before suing for the penalty. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. (REMITTINC INDICT MENT FROM DISTRICT то CIRCUIT COURT — CON" STRUCTION OF STATLTE.) UNITED STATKS DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OK NEHRASKA.
In 126 Federal Reporter 659, another in dictment against United States Senator Dietrich, came up on a question of jurisdiction raised by the court itself; the precise question being the meaning of the words "next session" in Revised Statues, Sec. 1038 providing that any district court may, by order, remit any of the indictments to the "next session" of the Circuit Court of the same district, when, in the opinion of the District Court, difficult and important ques tions are involved; and "thereupon" the pro ceedings shall be the same in the Circuit Court as if the indictment had been origin ally presented therein. The indictment had • been returned to the November, 1903, term of the District Court. The November term of the Circuit Court was adjourned from
289
December 24, to December 28, and then by successive adjournments to January 4, 1904. On December 26, 1903, the District Court made an order remitting the indictment to the next session of the Circuit court. If the words "next session" were taken as refer ring to the next term the indictment would not be triable until the May term of the Cir cuit Court. If, on the other hand, they meant the next resumption of business, after an adjournment during the term, it would be triable at the current term. After reviewing a large number of defini tions, the court decides that "next session" means the next resumption of business at the present term. McMullan v. United States, 146 U. S. 360, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127, 36 L. Ed. 1007; United States v. McKee, 4 Dill, i, 26 Fed. Cas. 712, (No. 15,687), Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, n Sup. Ct. Rep. 80, 34 L. Ed. 691; Smith v. United States 137 U. S. 224, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 88, 34 L. Ed. 700, are cited. LIBEL. (ARTICLES LIKELOUS Per Se—RIDICULE or OPINIONS.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.
In Triggs r. Sun Printing & Publishing Company, 86 New York Supplement 486, the noted professor of English Literature in the Chicago University, was refused relief against the New York Sun for articles deemed by him to have been libelous per se. The majority of the court, Justice Laughlin dissenting, say that the spirit of exaggera tion and fun pervading these articles was not intended seriously. The plaintiff has regard ed the publication too gravely and has con sidered what was intended to amuse the readers of the paper, as a serious criticism upon his work, a view which a study of the articles does not warrant. As far as the court knows, an article which makes an opinion propounded by a teacher ridiculous has never been held libelous. Quotations from the articles in question follow: "And now the god has spoken. At (lie Cook County League of Women's Clubs, Saturday, I'rof. Triggs looked into the seeds of time and had a vision of the ' new man.' Hear and tremble, miserable homunculus of today : "' The business» man of the futiite would not be recognized by the business man of today. The present
