40
of the Commission to vote according to their prefer ence, as all unquestionably did. It is in human nature to whine over the decisions of umpires of ballgames and prize-fights, but the unworthy motives attributed by politicians to Bradley in this matter are contemptible and unmanly. His colleagues had con fidence in him, and for that reason selected him, and there has never been shown the slightest reason for impeaching his integrity. At the same time it is not dif ficult to agree with the " Reporter " in its opinion that the designating of the justices to such outside duties is unadvisable. The individuals may not suffer, or may even add to their own reputation, but the court can gain nothing and may be prejudiced by such a practice.
NOTES OF CASES. Punctuation. — In a recent number of the " Cen tral Law Journal " is an interesting article on "Punctuation — how considered in the Law." The most amusing and remarkable case involving punctua tion is doubtless Areson v. Areson, 3 Denio, 458. The question was the construction of the following provision in a will: " I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife, Mary, all my real estate, one clock, and the interest of five hundred dollars during her life time." The Supreme Court (5 Hill, 410), consist ing of Nelson, Bronson and Cowen, had unanimously held that the widow took a fee in the land and took the clock absolutely. Bronson, J., who gave the opinion, said that "This is one of those questions which sometimes arise upon wills, where the matter might about as well be decided one way as the other." But the court of errors thought it might better be decided the other way, and reversed the Supreme Court decision by a vote of eleven to ten, seven senators writing opinions. Senator Barlow thought" very little reliance should be placed upon the capricious rules of grammar"; that " intent is every thing," and that " by traveling this road," we asso ciate in one grand group of oracles not only the pro found jurists of former and present ages, but also the grammarians and critics of former and present ages, with all their learning in regard to commas, semi
colons, etc., and the strife comes up between the schools of Coke and Murray. Senator Wright strug gled with the novel idea of a life estate in a clock as follows : " Yet I am not at liberty to say that this old man had not received this old timepiece from his venerable parent, and that he regarded it as a part and parcel of that inheritance which should be pre served and continued in his family until old age and use rendered it unfit for its customary resting-place behind the door, and that he was willing to confide this family relic to his widow while she survived her aged companion, and then it should again serve to tick away another generation with some o•her mem ber of his family. So this relict got the relic only for her life." Senator Wright, it is amusing to observe, said exactly the contrary of what he meant, by fail ing to repeat his " not," and thus gives it as his opinion that he was "not at liberty" to say that "the old man regarded" the clock, etc. The old man might well have exclaimed, " Physician heal thy self." But eleven judges thus prevailed against thir teen, among the latter being the three wisest judges of their time, and wiser than whom never sat together on any bench, and the chairman modestly ventures to think that the latter were right. "Put Their Foot in It. — It will interest those readers of The Grhen Bag who followed the articles on Practical Tests in Evidence," to learn of a dis tinction recently made in the New York Supreme Court (Rost v. Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co., 10 App. Div. 477), in the doctrine that one suing for a cor poreal injury may exhibit the injured part in court. This was an action for the loss of a foot, and the plaintiff was permitted to exhibit the amputated member preserved in spirits. This was held error, on the ground that it could only have been done with the view of prejudicing and inflaming the jury. The plaintiff was only five years old at the time of the in jury. The claim that the evidence was proper to en able the jury to judge of her size was met by the ob servation that she was in court and the jury could see her and judge from what was left of her body. That the inflaming process was eminently successful is evi dent, for there was a verdict for $27,500!
