47 IN proceedings recently commenced in the Supreme Court of Iowa the constitutionality of the dipsomaniac law, passed by the last legislature, under which more than one hun dred persons have been committed to the wards for inebriates at two state insane asy lums, is being severely tested. It is set up that if the accused is insane the district court is not the proper tribunal to determine the fact, that being the duty of the county insane commission created by Iowa law. If the ac cused is a criminal, then he should be tried by a jury of his peers and cannot be sent to confinement by a judge of the court. If the accused is an insane person, the proceeding against him is irregular because the law re quires guardians to be appointed for insane persons before suit may be begun against them. The sum and substance of the ques tion might be stated in the query, "Is an in ebriate insane, or is he a criminal?" THE insane patients at the state asylum are indignant at being confined together with the inebriates. They consider themselves far su perior. When tobacco was being distributed to the patients, one of the insane, who had been working faithfully, thought he ought to have a larger allowance. Accordingly he asked for a bit more of the weed. "You use lots of tobacco, don't you?" asked an inebriate who was standing by. "Yes," came the answer: "I'm getting to be a confirmed inebriate in the use of it." LORD RUSSELL once asked Mr. Hume : "Mr. Hume, what do you consider to be the object of legislation?" "The greatest good of the greatest num ber." "And what do you consider the greatest number?" "Number one," was Mr. Hume's reply. IN the Court of Exchequer there is (says the Westminster Gazette) a very remarkable writ. It was filed on the 3rd of October, 1725. by John Everit against Joseph Wil-
liams. The statement of claim is a very lengthy one; it sets forth the fact with much clearness that both men were highway rob bers, and that a partnership existed between them for the purposes of carrying on busi ness as highwaymen. The partnership ter minated within one year of its inception. Everit sued his partner for £1000, "being for moneys wrongfully appropriated to defend ant's private purse." The action was ad judged to be a gross contempt of court, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay all costs, whilst the solicitors who served the writ were fined £50 each; one of the solicitors, a man ' named Wreathcock, refused to pay the fine, and was sent to prison for six months. Both' plaintiff and defendant to this action were subsequently hanged, one at Tyburn and the other at Maidstone. OF the names giveti to the various courts within the Temple, some are easily explicable, as, for example, Inner Temple-lane, Middle Temple-lane, Mitre-court-buildings, Foun tain-court, Garden-court, and Temple-gar dens, and nothing need be said regarding them. Others, again, are derived from public offices at one time situated in the particular block of buildings. Thus we have Crown Office-row, so named because at one time the Crown office was there, although for a long time prior to ks removal to the Royal Courts of Justice in 1882 it was at 2, King's Benchwalk. The last-mentioned pile of chambers derived its name from the circumstance that the King's Bench office in former days was at the river end of the walk. Again, other courts have received the names they bearfrom special features noticeable in connection with them. Thus Fig Tree-court, which has been reputed a favorite locale for the scenes in certain kinds of sensational fiction, but re garding which Mr. Flood, in his pleasant little book, An Hour in the Temple, declares that all he can allege against the court is that it is not so easy to find an address there as in other parts of the Temple, is so named be cause at one time a fig tree actually flourished in or near it. In the records of the Inner Temple there occurs an entry, under date
