Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

DEATH OF HON. JOSEPH R. SWAN.

Judge Joseph R. Swan died at his residence at Columbus, O., on Thursday, December 18. In his death Ohio loses one of her best-known and most prominent jurists. Judge Swan was born at Westerville, Oneida County, N. Y., December 28, 1802, lacking ten days of being eighty-two years old at the time of his death. His parents were Jonathan and Sarah Swan. He was of Scotch-Irish ancestry. Judge Swan received an academic education at Aurora, New York, and commenced the study of law, which was completed in this city with his uncle, Gustavus Swan. He was admitted to the Bar in 1824, and at once commenced practicing his profession in this and adjoining counties. He was married in 1833 to Miss Hannah R. Andrews, of Rochester, N. Y., and has three sons and two daughters. Mrs. Swan died in 1876.

Mr. Swan was Prosecuting Attorney of Franklin County from 1830 to 1835, and a year later was elected Judge of the Common Pleas Court for the counties of Franklin, Madison, Clark, Champaign, Logan, Union and Delaware, serving two terms, after which he formed a partnership with his brotherin-law, Hon. John W. Andrews. In 1854 Judge Swan was elected to the Supreme Bench, serving one term. In 1859 Judge Swan resumed the practice of law here, and soon thereafter became connected with the Columbus and Xenia Railroad, and afterwards General Solicitor of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway. He was twice tendered appointments to the Supreme Bench, but declined. Judge

Swan is the author of the following standard law books: "Swan's Treatise," which has passed the tenth edition; "Guide for Executors and Administrators," "Swan's Revised Statutes," "The Revised Edition of the Statutes," "Swan's Practice" (in two volumes), and "Swan's Pleadings and Practice Under the Code."

OFFICIAL ADVERTISEMENTS IN SUNDAY PAPERS.

The question as to the legality of official advertisements in Sunday papers in Ohio, came up before Judge Bingham at the Franklin County Common Pleas Court last week. The city of Columbus had advertised for bids for the publication of its official advertisements for the year, and the Sunday Capital, a paper published every Sunday morning at Columbus, being the lowest, the contract was awarded to them. On an application for an injunction to enjoin the city from entering into this contract, Judge Bingham decided that such a contract was illegal. The judge explained that his former opinion, sustaining a Sunday publication, was based upon a different state of facts, an assessment for a street being sought to be avoided simply because of the fact that the assessment notice was advertised in a Sunday paper, which the court held was not sufficient reason to void the assessment.

In the present case the court said it was admitted that the work necessary to bring the Sunday paper before the world was common labor, and the only remaining question was whether it was a work of necessity or charity. Certainly it was not the latter. As to works of necessity, said the court, courts differ. A rule defining works of necessity, adopted fifty years ago, would fall far short of what is needed at the present time, when the condition of things has so changed. It is now held that the running of trains has so interwoven itself with the affairs of human life that it has become a necessity to run trains on Sunday, and they are therefore exempted. This is also true in some places of street railways, and a change in the condition of the people would necessitate a change of this statute accordingly.

The court remarked that our present statute is superannuated and not adapted to the present time and it ought

to be remodeled and made applicable to the present state of things, as there are many works which have become "works of necessity" since the adoption of that statute. As for instance Sunday newspapers, which were a comparatively unknown thing fifty years ago, have now become, in view of the demand of the reading public for the very latest news, almost a necessity, as there is hardly a town of 20,000 inhabitants in the country that has not one or more Sunday papers. No court has yet defined clearly what works of necessity are. Judge Thurman in his decision gives a sort of general definition, stating that it does not necessarily mean "manual labor," and goes a little further and states that it may not be a work of absolute and positive necessity, but it may be "moral necessity," but what is meant by a "moral " necessity is not given.

Judge Bingham said he thought the case ought to be reviewed by a court having authority to some extent to inaugurate a rule that would conflict with the rules which have been heretofore recognized but not established by our Supreme Court. He said, however, that it would be presumptuous for him to inaugurate such a rule, and he would therefore have to follow the principles as they are now recognized, even though the Supreme Court reverses it.

The question will probably be taken to the Supreme Court, as suggested by the Juuge.

WORK OF THE SUPREME COURT AND SUPREME COURT COMMISSION.

The work done by the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Commission during their annual term of 1884, just closed, speaks very well for the industry and efficiency of the two branches of the court. The number of cases disposed of by both combined during the year was 544,-against 575 during 1883-and the number of motions disposed of was 432,-against 419 during 1883.

The General Docket for the January term of 1884 contained 981 causes, 266 of which were entered during the year. The Motion Docket of the Court contained 378 motions and that of the Commission 62.

During the last term the Supreme Court disposed of 169 causes on the General Docket and 374 on the Motion Docket.

The Commission disposed of 375 causes on the General Docket and 58 on Motion Docket. Whole number of causes disposed of on General Docket is 544, leaving at this date, December 20, the 437 causes with which to commence the next term.

A comparison of the work of the past term with that of the former terms of the court may be had by reference to the following table, showing the number of causes disposed of for the last thirty-four years:

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

The above embraces the cases disposed of by the Supreme Court Commission, which commenced February 1, 1876, and continued to February 1, 1879, and the Commission which commenced April 17, 1883.

HINTS TO ATTORNEYS.

The terms of Court commence on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January of each year.

The rules of practice in the Supreme Court were revised Dec. 16, 1881, and important additions and changes made, They are published in pamphlet form, and a copy will be sent free to each Attorney practicing in the court, on application. Attorneys are requested to preserve these printed rules for future reference, as the edition is limited, and but one copy can be furnished each attorney.

All letters of inquiry will be answered as promptly as possible, but as the correspondence has grown to be extensive, delay in answering is at,times unavoidable. State the title of the cause about which you inquire in each letter, even though you should write on consecutive days, as with the large docket it cannot be remembered from day to day what causes have been inquired after.

Write the plaintiff's name, and especially the initial letter, plainly, and be careful to give the title correctly, as there is no reverse index.

An inquiry in regard to a case not pending should state the fact, and give as near as possible the date on which it was decided.

Prepay your express packages and letters in full, and thus prevent delay in delivery.

No express package with charges unpaid will be received.

Fees.-The General Docket fee is $5.00, and the Motion Docket fee is $2.00 in each cause. No cause will be docketed until the requisite fee is paid. There is no docket fee chargeable in a criminal cause, or in a motion made in a cause pending on the General Docket. Checks are not negotiable. Send money by draft, express, or post-office order.

General Docket Causes.-Forward with your petition in error, a precipe (or what is better, a waiver of the issuing and service of summons in error), $5.00 docket fee and the papers mentioned in Sec. 6716, Rev. Stat.

Printing.- File printed records (10 copies) within sixty days after the filing of the petition in error (Sec. 6711, Rev. Stat.)

« PreviousContinue »