The Lawyers 'Easy Chair. .of this paragraph, which deserves unqualified praise. It gives news of all the law books published during the last month, with reviews of many of them signed by the writers — the signatures fac-similed so that there shall be no mistake as to the authorship (take note, Baconians), and a table of important articles in legal periodicals, etc., etc. This is very useful too.. The candor and independence of the editor is illus trated by his publication of reviews of books taken from other sources, although they may disagree in part or in whole with the estimate of " Book News." A striking instance of this is a notice of " Parsons on Contracts," from the " Vale Law Journal," which lays violent hands on that awful old ark — and we can not say, without reason. We commend this cheap little periodical to all lawyers, It may serve a prac titioner a good turn in pointing out desirable things and warning against others. It is a capital idea, and thus far is well executed.
Dissenters. — We read an article in a Canada law journal, the other day, copied, if we recollect right, from the " Albany Law Journal." although perhaps not originating with it, on the Supreme Court of the United States, which contained one assertion that will be apt to make the Bar, and that august court itself, laugh inextinguishably, namely, that dissent in that tribunal is rare! There is probably no court in this country in which there is more, if as much, dis sent. In its early days this was not so common, but in recent times, when there have been so many questions of political and constitutional complexion, the increase of dissent is marked. The judges are not so much afraid of Chief Justice Marshall dead as they were of him living. There is not, nor has there been for a long time, any one personality so over powering in will, in logic, and in grasp of unprece dented questions, as that great man's. The decision of the very last very novel question, namely, that of the meaning of " high seas," was not unanimous, and so far as we have noted the remarks of legal journal ists, including the diffident and measured utterances of our" St. Louis Reviewer." it seems to be the prevail ing impression "that the tail wags the dog" in this instance. We do not believe in the policy of publish ing the fact or the reasons of dissent, for it always tends to make the law uncertain, and their publication hurts the influence of this, as of any other court — but that is a debatable ma'ter. The fact in this in stance is beyond dispute.
295
"conviction" was defined. The indictment was for a second offense of uttering false coin. The first "conviction" is a misdemeanor, but a second is a felony. On the first offense there was a verdict of guilty, but judgment was suspended and had never passed. It seems that early authorities hold that "conviction " means verdict or plea, and sentence, but the court for the consideration of crown cases reserved now hold that sentence is not essential to "conviction." Of this the " Law Journal " observes : "the decision in Regina v. Blaby is to be hailed as in substance adopting the reasonable view, and reject ing ancient technicalities appropriate enough infavoretn vita in days of capital punishment, but based on an insufficient distinction between guilt in law and the amount or fact of punishment." This doctrine prevails in this country. U.S. v. Watkinds, 6 Fed. Rep. 158; Blair's case, 25 Gratt. 850. But "ad judged " implies sentence. Blaufus v. People, 69 N.Y. 107: 25 Am. Rep. 148.
The Very Queerest Case. — Unless some faith less newspaper reporter in New Jersey is trying the credulity of the populace with an invention, Russell Sage's case must yield the palm for oddity. The story comes to us as follows : — "Paterson, N.J., May 7. — Several months ago Henrv Ives, a Bergen County farmer, — not Saint Vves of Breton — wooed Annie Rafferty, a comely young woman living in Manchester township, and a betrothal followed. When about to go away he gave his sweetheart a parting kiss, during which the gold filling in Miss Rafferty's teeth fell out. She told him of the mishap, thinking he would com pensate her for the loss. He did not, however, and nonMiss Rafferty has brought suit against Ives. She had the tooth refilled and has furnished her lawyer with a hill of expenses. The suit has frightened the farmer and the engagement is off."
NOTES OF CASES.
This raises several very nice questions. Was not the occurrence purely accidental? Does not a woman impliedly warrant the anchorage of her dental fillings as against a labial collision which she does not forbid? Was not Miss Rafferty guilty of contributory negli gence? Could she not maintain an action against the dentist, and if so, is not that her only remedy? And so on. But whether the occurrence is sufficient to justify the farmer in abandoning his contract, is another thing. It might go to mitigate damages — this apparent inability to masticate hard tack and bacon rinds and the other edibles which usually fur nish forth the Pennsylvania agriculturist's board. (Wre say so on the strength of the Pennsylvania case
"Conviction."— The "London Law Journal" brings us news of the case of Regina -;-. lilabv, in which
in which the wife had a divorce on account of hard work and poor food, Detrich's Appeal, 38 Alb. L. J.
