604
THE GREEN BAG
extent that it accrues before the date of the judgment, setting, "the seal of judicial sanction to the long-continued practice which, since the decision of Pike v. Fitzgibbon, has gradually filched from the married woman restrained from anticipation a substantial portion of the freedom from liability for her debts which equity originally gave her." More recent de cisions have endeavored to extend this relax ation and to reach income accrued after the date of judgment which can at least be reached by further actions on the judgment, and to the mind of the author such extension would seem a logical result of the decisions he criti cises. The Court, however, has declined to make the extension. "The question whether restraint on antici pation is, in effect, operative from the date of contract, or from the date of judgment, is therefore, reserved for some future tribunal to decide. How the courts will meet it, is not easy to forecast. For the sake of simplicity and convenience in giving effect to the judg ment, doubtless the date of judgment has every thing to commend it. But if judicial consis tency is to be preserved and the equitable doctrine of restraint to be upheld in its fullest integrity, then the date of contract must un questionably prevail." PROPERTY (See Jurisprudence).
PUBLIC POLICY. "American Democracy on Trial," by Oliver E. Branch, American Lawyer (V. xiii, p. 278). PUBLIC POLICY. "Lawlessness," by Moorfield Storey, American Lawyer (V. xiii, p. 290).
PUBLIC POLICY. "The Mortality of Trusts," by Henry Wollman, Albany Law Journal (V. Ixvii, p. 227). RAILROADS (See Constitutional Law).
WITNESSES (Expert Testimony). An ad dress by Lucilius A. Emory before the Maine State Bar Association last February on "Medical Expert Evidence," is published in the July American Law Review (V. xxxix, p. 481). The author discusses the familiar crit icisms of the system of expert testimony and adds the weight of his indorsement to several remedies that have frequently been suggested and deprecates much of the thoughtless criti cism to which medical witnesses, and the sys tem in general, have been subjected. His most striking suggestions are: "If we, ourselves, would acquire more knowledge; would take more pains to drawout medical evidence clearly and accurately; would refrain from incomplete and contradic tory hypothetical questions; would allow him reasonable limits in which to make clear his meanings; would refuse to let him act as coach; would frown upon any exhibition of partisan ship; would make him understand that he is to be a witness only, and as to the truth only; would make him realize by vigorous crossexamination that he must be nothing else in the case, I think we would, on our part, con tribute much to the desired improvement." He also renews the suggestion that such witnesses be appointed by the Court and paid by the state.
